Skip to main content

Full text of "The lives and trials of Archibald Hamilton Rowan, the Rev. William Jackson, the Defenders, William Orr, Peter Finnerty, and other eminent Irishmen"

See other formats 


5 
0*. 


THE  (jS^ 

LIVES  AND   TRIALS 


OF 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN, 

THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON, 

THE   DEFENDERS, 
WILLIAM  ORR,  PETER  FINNERTY, 


AND    OTHER 


EMINENT    IRISHMEN. 


WITH 


INTRODUCTION,  NOTES,  & 


c. 

BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIE^.'Af^Y 
CHESTNUT  HILL.  MASS. 


BY     THOMAS     MAC    NEVIN,    ESQ- 

BAURI3TER  AT  LAW. 


DUBLIN : 
PUBLISHED    BY    JAMES    DUFFY', 

10,  WELLINGTON-QUAY. 


MDCCCXLVI. 


BOSTON  COU-ESE  LIB-^mk. 
CHESTNUT  HlUt,  MAi>S- 


CONTENTS 


Page 

Historical  Introduction,  ...         ...         ...         ...  i 

Memoir  of  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  ...         ...  41 

Trial  of  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan  for  Seditious 

J^lB£Xi^  •••  «•>  ■••  •••  •••  •••  01 


Memoir  of  the  Rev.  William  Jackson,  ...         ...         177 


Trial  of  the  Rev.  William  Jackson  for  High  Treason,  187 

Some  Account  of  the  Defenders,            ...         ...  ...  283 

Trials  of  the  Defenders  for  High  Treason,  ...  ...  297 

Account  of  William  Orr's  Trial  and  Execution,  ...  481 

Trial  of  Peter  Finertt  for  Seditious  Libel,...  ...  497 

Trial  of  Patrick  Finney  for  High  Treason,   ...  ...  547 

1797 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  principles  of  parliamentary  reform  had  gained  considerable 
ground  in  Ireland  previous  to  the  year  1790  ;  but  their 
proselytes,  to  a  great  extent,  had  been  amongst  the  aristocratic 
portion  of  society,  and  there  were  but  few  men  who  were 
enlightened  enough  to  combine  with  a  demand  for  parliamentary 
reform,  that  other  equally  necessary  measure,  the  removal  of 
Catholic  disability. 

Parliamentary  reform  was  a  Whig  measure,  and  the  Whigs 
of  Ireland  had  not  made  up  their  minds  that  its  blessings 
should  go  beyond  the  pale  of  their  own  sect.  The  Northern 
Whig  Club,  founded  under  the  fatal  auspices  of  Lord 
Charlemont,  partook  of  the  character  of  its  patron,  and 
amongst  its  numbers  were  men  distinguished,  but  a  few  years 
after  its  dissolution,  for  principles  and  conduct  alike  destructive 
to  civil  and  religious  freedom,  and  to  national  independence. 
It  was  founded  in  Belfast  in  March,  1790.  Its  career  was 
brief  and  useless. 

A  society,  whose  existence  was  pregnant  with  the  most 
important  events,  which,  before  its  destruction,  involved  in 
its  body  a  considerable  portion  of  the  people,  and  threat- 
ened the  existence  of  English  power  in  Ireland,  followed 
in  order  of  time  the  Northern  Whig  Club.  It  occurred  to  a 
few  young  and  bold  spirits — found  in  the  middle  ranks  of  life 
in  Belfast,  and  chiefly  Presbyterians — that  the  great  defect  in 
the  previous  movements  for  a  redress  of  political  grievances 
was  the  sectarian  bigotry  which  excluded  the  Catholics  from 
any  participation  in  the  blessings  of  reform.  The  young  men 
of  Belfast  judged  justly,    that    the   hope   of  obtaining   a  full 

B 


11  INTRODUCTION. 

representation  of  the  people  in  parliament,  whilst  two-thirds 
of  them  were  to  be  excluded  from  any  share  in  it,  was 
mischievous  and  absurd.  "  Our  efforts  for  reform,"  said 
Neilson  to  his  friends,  "  have  hitherto  been  ineffectual,  and 
they  deserve  to  be  so,  for  they  have  been  selfish  and  unjust,  as 
not  including  the  rights  of  the  Catholics  in  the  claims  we  put 
forward  for  ourselves." 

The  result  was,    that    they  set   about   the  formation    of  a 
society  which  should  be  neither   sectarian  nor  exclusive,  but 
whose  objects  should  be  the  political  amelioration  of  all  the 
people    of    this    country.       Attributing    present    evils   to   two 
causes — the  want  of  a  liberal  system  of  popular  representation 
and  the  existence  of  Catholic  disability — they  adopted  as  the 
ends  of  their  institution  two  remedial   measures  which   have 
since  become  parts  of  the  British  constitution.    In  the  liberality 
of  their  views  towards  their  Catholic  fellow-countrymen,  they 
were  beyond  their  age  in  Ireland,  but  they  went  no  farther 
in  either  of  their  objects  than  did  many  of  the  enlightened  and 
liberal  politicians,  and  some  of  the  ablest  statesmen  in  England. 
The  Report  of  the  Commons'  Committee  of  Secrecy  in  1798 
has  given  a  version  of  the  foundation  and  original  objects  of 
the   United   Irishmen.       There    are  few  state    papers  which, 
assuming  a  tone   of  philosophic  candor,   contains  more  misre- 
presentation and  direct  falsehood  than  this  Report.      Speaking 
of  the  institution  of  the  society  it  says: — "  The  society,  under 
the  name  of  United  Irishmen,  it  appears,  was  established  in  1791 ; 
its  founders  held  forth  what  they  termed  Catholic  emancipation 
and   parliamentary  reform   as   the    ostensible  objects  of  their 
union;   but   it  clearly  appeared  from  the  letter  of  Theobald 
Wolfe  Tone,  accompanying  their  original  constitution  as  trans- 
mitted to  Belfast  for  adoption,    that  from    its  commencement 
the  real  purposes  of  those  who  were  at  the  head  of  the  insti- 
tution   was   to    separate    Ireland  from    Great  Britain,    and   to 
subvert    the    established    constitution    of    this    kingdom ;     in 
corroboration  of  which  your  committee  have  annexed  to  this 
Report  several  of  their   early  publications,  particularly  a  pro- 
spectus of  the  society   which  appeared  in    1791,    as  also  the 
plan  of  reform  which  they  recommended  to  the  people."  *    Tone 

*  Report,  p.  4. 


INTRODUCTION.  HI 

was  from  the  commencement  of  his  career  a  republican.  He 
conceived  that  parliamentary  reform  was  unattainable  as  long  as 
a  connection  with  England  existed,  and  from  the  earliest 
period  of  his  political  career  he  struggled,  either  covertly  or 
openly,  to  eflPect  a  separation  between  the  countries.  But  at 
the  period  of  the  establishment  of  the  Society  of  United 
Irishmen  he  was  nearly  alone  in  these  opinions ;  and  it  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that  long  after  the  institution  of  the  United 
Irishmen,  he,  who  was  one  of  its  most  active  founders,  con- 
tinued in  the  confidence  and  service  of  the  Catholics.  They 
were  not  republicans,  their  principles  were  monarchical,  and 
it  was  not  until  loyalty  refused  and  repelled  them,  that  they 
unwillingly — and  never  effectively — joined  the  republican  party. 
Had  Tone  made  his  opinions  public,  the  timid  and  the  servile 
amongst  that  body  would  have  shunned  him,  they  would  have 
withdrawn  their  confidence  from  him,  and  avoided  his  dangerous 
talents.  But  he  continued  one  of  their  most  confidential  agents 
and  wannest  partizans  to  the  very  last,  and  until  the  pressure 
of  circumstances  had  made  their  views  identical  with  his  own. 
The  letter  which  the  Report  would  seem  to  represent  as  a 
public  document  was  a  private  communication.  Its  contents 
could  not  bind  the  society,  and  it  is  clear  they  did  not,  for  the 
principles  which  he  announces  to  be  his  were  not  adopted  by 
them  till  a  much  later  period.  With  regard  to  the  prospectus,  it 
has  all  the  appearance  of  a  vulgar  artifice,  an  invention  containing 
what  the  committee  might  wish  to  find  in  the  original  constitution 
of  the  society,  but  certainly  not  containing  the  open  and  avowed 
doctrines  on  which  it  acted,  up  to  the  dispersion  by  force  of  the 
Dublin  branch  of  the  Union  in  May,  1794.  If  it  be  not  an 
invention,  yet,  no  more  than  Tone's  letter,  could  it  bind  the 
United  Irishmen.  It  was  not  adopted  in  their  meetings,  it 
formed  no  part  of  their  constitution,  it  lays  down  propositions 
which  were  far  in  advance  of  the  acknowledged  principles  of 
the  first  society.  Neither  does  the  plan  of  Reform  men- 
tioned in  the  Report  of  the  Secret  Committee,  and  proposed 
to  the  Union,  contain  any  republicanism,  nor  manifest  any 
desire  of  effecting  a  separation  from  England.  Its  doc- 
trines have  since  been  recognized  as  fundamental  doctrines  of 
radical  reform,  have  been  discussed  in  the  English  House  of 
Commons,    and,    judging   from    the   progressing    strength    of 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

popular  opinions,  are  likely  to  become,  at  no  very  distant  period, 
as  much  a  portion  of  our  constitution  as  the  other  obnoxious 
measures  proposed  by  the  original  society  of  United  Irishmen.* 
But  there  is  clearer  proof  of  the  intentions  of  that  body  to  be 
found  in  the  declaration  of  sentiment  made  at  a  meeting  con- 
vened by  the  leaders  of  the  United  Irishmen,  and  held  in 
Belfast  in  December,  1792,  when  the  Union  had  been  some 
time  in  operation.  At  this  meeting  Samuel  Neilson  was 
secretary,  and  Charles  Rankin  chairman.  A  declaration  of 
their  political  sentiments  was  made,  in  which  they  declare, 
"  that  a  radical  reform  in  the  representation  of  the  people  had 
long  been  and  still  is  the  great  object  to  which  all  our  wishes, 
all  our  endeavours  tend — the  object  which  we  have  pursued 
and  which  we  shall  never  cease  to  pursue  until  it  is  attained — 
that  to  attain  it  we  shall  think  no  sacrifice  or  risk  too  great ; 
and  that  no  reform  can  ever  be  adequate  or  useful,  satisfactory 
or  just,  unless  all  Irishmen  of  every  description  shall  be  equally 
and  fairly  represented."  f  Out  of  this  meeting  grew  the 
assembly  of  northern  deleg-ates  at  Duuffannon,  who  declared  the 
sense  of  the  people  in  resolutions  expressive  of  their  attachment 
to  the  form  and  original  principles  of  the  British  Constitution, 
and  of  their  disapproval  of  republican  forms  of  government  as 
applied  to  this  country.  They  proceeded,  however,  to  insist 
upon  a  complete  parliamentary  reform  and  upon  the  immediate 
and  entire  emancipation  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  as  a  measure 
indispensably  necessary  to  the  safety  of  the  country.  These 
were  the  original  views  of  the  United  Irishmen — views  adopted 
by  the  wisdom  of  our  own  day,  and  carried  out  by  the  exertions 
of  our  ablest  statesmen.  The  history  of  the  times  will  fully 
explain  how  principles  like  these  were  relinquished  for  the 
republicanism  of  a  later  period.  In  the  Memoir  delivered 
to  the  government  in  1798,  by  Messrs.  Emmet,  Mac- 
nevin,  and  O'Connor,  the  following  statement  of  the  views  of 
the  Union  is  given : — "  The  disunion  that  had  long  existed 
between  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  of  Ireland,  particularly 
those  of  the  Presbyterian  religion,  was  found  by  experience  to 
be  so  great  an  obstacle  to  the  obtaining  a  reform  in  parliament 

•  The  Duke  of  Richmond's  plan  of  Reform  embraced  annual  parliaments  and 
universal  suffrage.     1  Madd,  1st  series,  p.  102. 

f  Madden's  United  Irishmen,  1  vol.,  2d  series,  p.  82. 


INTRODUCTION.  V 

on  anything  of  just  and  popular  principles,  that  some  persons, 
equally  friendly  to  that  measure  and  to  religious  toleration, 
conceived  the  idea  of  joining  both  sects  in  pursuance  of  the 
same  object — a  repeal  of  the  penal  laws,  and  a  reform  including 
in  itself  an  extension  of  the  right  of  suffrage  to  the  Catholic. 
From  this  originated  the  societies  of  United  Irishmen  in  the 
end  of  the  year  1791  ;  even  then  it  was  clearly  perceived,  that 
the  chief  support  of  the  borough  interest  in  Ireland  was  the 
weight  of  English  influence ;  but  as  yet  that  obvious  remark 
had  not  led  the  minds  of  the  reformers  towards  a  separation 
from  England.  Some  individuals  had  convinced  themselves 
that  benefit  would  result  to  this  country  from  such  a  measure ; 
but  during  the  whole  existence  of  the  Society  of  United  Irish- 
men we  may  safely  aver,  that  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge 
and  recollection  no  such  object  was  ever  agitated  by  its 
members  either  in  pubHc  debate  or  private  conversation ;  nor 
until  the  society  had  lasted  a  considerable  time  were  any  traces 
of  republicanism  to  be  met  with  there ;  its  views  were  purely 
and  in  good  faith  what  the  test  of  the  society  avows."  *  And 
such  they  continued  to  be  until  the  hopes  raised  by  the  King's 
Message  to  the  House  of  Commons  recommending  the  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  of  reform,  and  by  the  limited  con- 
cessions to  Catholics,  in  1793,  were  dissipated  by  the  policy  of 
coercion,  which  was  resumed  in  1794,  and  which,  with  the 
slight  intermission  of  Lord  Fitzwilliam's  administration,  con- 
tinued to  increase  in  vigour  until  the  rebellion  exploded. 

It  would  seem  that  despotism,  frightened  by  the  concessions 
to  the  Catholics,  in  1793,  required  the  soothing  stimulants  of 
strong  measures  to  restore  it  to  its  propriety.  These  conces- 
sions were  followed  hot  foot  by  the  Convention  bill.  It  was  much  to 


*  Macnevin's  Pieces  of  Irish  History,  p.  174.  The  test  of  the  United  Irish- 
men adopted  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Dublin  Society,  held  in  the  Eagle  Tavern, 
Eustace-street,  9th  Nov.,  1791,  at  which  meeting  the  Hon.  Simon  liutler  was 
chairman,  and  James  Napper  Tandy  was  secretary,  was  as  follows  : — 

"  I.  A.  B.,  in  the  presence  of  God,  do  pledge  myself  to  my  coimtry,  that  I  will 
use  all  my  abilities  and  influence  in  the  attainment  of  an  impartial  and  adequate 
.representation  of  the  Irish  nation  in  parliament ;  and  as  a  means  of  absolute  and 
immediate  necessity  in  the  establishment  of  this  chief  good  of  Ireland,  I  will 
endeavour  as  much  as  in  my  ability  to  forward  a  brotherhood  of  afl^ection,  an 
identity  of  interests,  a  communion  of  rights,  and  an  union  of  power  among  Irish- 
men of  all  religious  persuasions,  \vithout  which  every  reform  in  parliament  must 
be  partial,  not  national,  inadequate  to  the  wants,  delusive  to  the  wishes,  and 
insufficient  for  the  freedom  and  happiness  of  this  country." 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

have  acknowledgedthe  social  existence  of  the  Catholics.  They  had, 
according  to  Grattan,  paid  two  millions  of  taxes,  without  a  share 
in  the  representation  or  the  expenditure  ;  they  had  discharged 
the  active  and  laborious  offices  of  life,  manufacture,  husbandry, 
and  commerce,   without  those  franchises  which  are  annexed  to 
the  fruits  of  industry  ;  and  they  had  replenished  the  armies  and 
navies  of  Great   Britain  without  commission,  rank,  or  reward ; 
it  was  going  far  then  to  concede  to  them  the  right  to  elect  but 
not  to  be  elected — it  was  going  far  to  tender  to  them  the  rank  of 
the  officer,  and  the  gown  of  the  lawyer.    These  were  partial  con- 
cessions, and  required,  to  appease  the  offended  spirit  of  ascen- 
dancy, a  commensurate  quantity  of  general  restriction,  and  the 
Convention  Act,  which,  under  the  pretence  of  preventing  unlaw- 
ful assemblies,  virtually  took  away  the  right  of  meeting  altoge- 
ther, was  the  palinode  composed  by   parliament  to  soothe  the 
ruffled  spirits  of  the  state.    This  act  aimed  directly  at  the  system 
of  delegation  which  had  rendered  the  name  of  Dungannon  for- 
midable to  the  ears  of  power — it  destroyed  that  right  of  meeting 
by  delegates  which  ensured  security  to  the  liberties  of  the  people 
against  the  encroachments   of  a   king  or  the  corruption  of   a 
parliament;    and  it  was  the  subsequent  operation   of    this  act 
against  the   meetings    of   the    United    Irishmen    that   changed 
their  tactics,  and  exacted  secrecy  in  their  proceedings.      The 
year  1794  was  pregnant  with  coercion.     Archibald  Hamilton 
Rowan  was  convicted  of  publishing  the  address  of  the  Union  to 
the  Volunteers,  and  was  sentenced  to  two  years'  imprisonment  and 
a  fine  of  £500.     Mr.  Ponsonby's  bill  for  reform  was  rejected  by 
a  considerable  majority,  and  on   the  debate  of   that  question 
Grattan  went  out  of  his  way  to  attack  the  United  Irishmen. 
He  found  no  epithet  too  strong    with  which  to  stigmatize  the 
"  seditious  bunglers" — many  of   whom  afterwards  sealed  with 
their  lives  the   sincerity  of  their  political  faith.     And  yet  the 
plan  of  reform  which  the   society  proposed,   and   which  Grattan 
denounced  as  levelling  and  subversive,  was  one  applauded  by  the 
English  Whigs,  and  recommended  by  the  high  authority  of  the 
Duke  of  Richmond. 

Fortified  by  the  rejection  of  Mr.  Ponsonby's  bill,  and  no 
doubt  encouraged  by  the  tone  taken  on  the  Whig  side  of  the 
house  with  regard  to  the  United  Irishmen,  the  enemies  of  reform 
took  the  active  step  of  dispersing  the  Dublin  society  of  the  Union. 


INTRODUCTION.  VU 

They  had  given  considerable  offence  to  Government  by  the 
boldness  of  their  views  and  the  violence  of  their  manifestoes  and 
speeches.  It  was  through  their  means  that  the  public  mind  had 
undergone  so  beneficial  a  change  relative  to  the  Catholic  claims, 
and  it  was  by  the  example  and  advice  of  the  United  Irishmen  of 
Dublin  that  the  Catholics  themselves  had  assumed  that  bold 
attitude  to  which  the  concessions  of  1793  were  mainly  attri- 
butable.* These  were  faults  which  it  appears  even  patriotism 
could  not  forgive,  and  which  drew  down  the  vengeance  of  power 
upon  the  Society.  On  the  4th  of  May,  1794,  their  ordinary 
place  of  meeting,  the  Tailors'  Hall,  in  Back-lane,t  was  attacked 
by  the  police,  their  meeting  dispersed,  and  their  papers  seized. 
The  forcible  suppression  of  the  Dublin  Society  primarily 
led  to  the  change  from  open  discussion  and  constitutional 
propagandism  to  secret  plotting  and  conspiracy ;  the  effects 
of  which  became  so  fatal  to  public  peace  after  the  recal  of 
Lord  Fitzwilliam.  When  he  was  sent  over  here,  Govern- 
ment might,  most  probably,  have  saved  the  country  all 
the  horrors  which  followed.  "  The  Parisian  massacres  of  Sep- 
tember, 1792,  had  an  immense  effect  in  Ireland;  men  who  were 
moderate  republicans  feared  to  accept  freedom  accompanied  by 
such  horrors ;  the  Catholic  aristocracy,  always  a  timid  and 
selfish  body,  offered  to  support  Government  in  withholding  their 
own  privileges ;  the  Catholic  clergy  separated  in  a  body  from 
the  reformers,  and  denounced  the  atheism  of  France  from  their 
altars;  if  the  Government  had  only  united  conciliation  with 
coercion,  the  tranquillity  of  Ireland  would  have  been  ensured. 
Such  was  the  policy  the  English  ministers  first  resolved  to  adopt. 
Earl  Fitzwilliam  was  sent  to  Ireland ;  measures  were  introduced 
which  at  that  crisis  would  have  been  received  with  enthusiastic 
gratitude ;  but  unfortunately  the  intrigues  of  party  interfered, 
and  to  all  the  causes  of  discord,  which  had  been  accumulating 
for  centuries,  were  added  unexpected  triumph  in  the  party  of  the 
few,  and  unexpected  disappointment  in  the  party  of  the  many  ."J 
Lord  Fitzwilliam  was  sent  over  with  full  powers  to  remove 
Catholic  disabilities,   and  to  crush  the  faction  by  which  this 

*  The  French  Republic  was  every  where  triumphant  in  March,  1793,  the  date 
of  the  introduction  of  the  Relief  Bill  into  the  House  of  Commons, 
t  Madd.  U.  I.,  1st  vol.  1  s.   143. 
X  Historical  Introduction  to  Dr.  Madden's  United  Irishmen. 


Vm  INTRODUCTION. 

country  was  misgoverned  ;  but  the  impediments  he  met  with  dis- 
appointed his  expectations,  and  baffled  his  mission  of  peace — he 
looked  to  the  Eng-Ksh  cabinet  for  support  and  received  none — the 
Beresfords  triumphed,  the  Catholics  were  sacrificed,  and  he 
abandoned  the  Government  with  mortification  and  disgust.  It 
has  been  constantly  asserted,  that  the  appointment  and  the  recall 
of  Lord  Fitzwilliam  were  portions  of  a  plan  of  deep  policy  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Pitt,  and  that  his  design  was  to  disappoint  and 
disgust  all  parties,  in  order  that  irritated  hopes  and  baffled  fac- 
tion might  become  the  ripeners  of  rebellion.  This  is  suscep- 
tible of  argument,  and  is  generally  enough  believed  ;*  but  it 
appears  too  keen  and  subtle,  too  full  of  an  impossible  foresight, 
too  Machiavellian  even  for  him  to  whom  it  is  attributed.  It  is 
more  probable  that  the  minister  adopted  a  plan  of  concession 
when  the  temper  of  the  times  seemed  to  demand  it,  and  that  he 
relinquished  it  the  moment  he  found  himself  to  be,  or  imagined 
that  he  was,  able  to  rule  the  country  without  its  aid,  and  by  the 
assistance  of  the  oligarchic  faction  which  Lord  Fitzwilliam 
sought  to  destroy.  However  this  may  be,  and  it  appears  imma- 
terial whether  Mr.  Pitt's  policy  was  guided  by  the  infamous 
sagacity  thus  attributed  to  it,  or  that  the  change  of  measures 
arose  from  the  facility  of  resuming  coercion,  the  result  of  Lord 
Fitzwilliara's  recall  promoted  the  views  of  the  republican 
section  of  the  United  Irishmen.  Gentle  measures  would  have 
rendered  them  innocuous  ;  coercion,  producing  disappointment 
and  irritation,  was  the  apt  agent  of  their  wildest  views. 

The  expectations  of  the  Catholics  were  immoderately  high ; 
their  despondency  was  proportionately  great.  They  coidd  have 
been  made  loyal  without  difficulty.  Loyalty  with  them  was  a 
prompt,  not  to  say  a  slavish,  virtue.  The  distinguished  servility 
of  Lords  Kenmare  and  Gormanstown  might  not,  indeed,  have 
been  easily  equalled  amongst  the  most  ignorant  of  the  democratic 
portion  of  their  body  ;  but  yet  they  were  open  to  the  seduction 
of  ministerial  promise,  and  would  have  given  a  vast  deal 
of  practical  gratitude  for  very  little  practical  good.  These 
loyal  and  servile  tendencies  received  a  rough  shock  from  the 
recall  of  the  popular  viceroy,  and  in  the  revulsion  of  disap- 
pointed hope  the  Catholics  caught  a  new  fire  from  the  United 

*  Plowden  distinctly  assumes  it  as  an  uncontrovertible  proposition. 


INTRODUCTION.  IX 

Irishmen.  From  this  period  both  of  these  bodies,  not  hitherto 
much  animated  by  common  impulses,  began  to  look  to  identical 
means  in  the  prosecution  of  their  objects,  and  these  objects  gra- 
dually began  to  define  themselves,  and  assume  the  form  of  repub- 
licanism and  religious  equality.  Were  any  thing  wanted  to 
drive  the  Catholics  into  the  ranks  of  the  Union,  it  was  supplied 
by  the  crimes  of  the  Orangemen,  committed  against  the  unfor- 
tunate and  proscribed  members  of  that  religion.  They  were 
made  the  victims  "  of  a  persecution  conceived  in  the  bitterness 
of  bigotry,  carried  on  with  the  most  ferocious  barbarity,  by  a 
banditti,  who,  being  of  the  religion  of  the  state,  had  committed 
with  the  greater  audacity  and  confidence  the  most  horrid 
murders,  and  had  proceeded  from  robbery  and  massacre  to 
extermination."* 

In  this  state  of  affairs,  so  promising  to  the  friends  of  revolu- 
tion, the  change  of  the  United  system  took  place.  The  Report 
of  the  Secret  Committee  says,  "  For  the  first  three  years  their 
attention  was  entirely  directed  to  the  engaging  in  their  society 
persons  of  activity  and  talent,  in  every  quarter  in  the  kingdom  ; 
and  in  preparing  the  public  mind  for  their  future  purposes  by 
the  circulation  of  the  most  seditious  publications,  particularly 
the  works  of  Thomas  Paine.f  At  this  time,  however,  the  leaders 
were  rather  cautious  of  alarming  minds  not  sufficiently  ripe  for 
the  adoption  of  their  principles  by  the  too  open  disclosure  of  the 
real  objects  they  had  in  view.  In  1795  the  test  of  the  society 
underwent  a  striking  revision ;  the  words  in  the  amended  test 
stand  '  a  full  representation  of  all  the  people,'  omitting  the  words 
'  in  the  Commons  House  of  parliament,'  and  the  reason  for 
which  has  been  admitted  by  the  members  of  the  executive, 
examined  before  your  committee,  to  be  the  better  to  reconcile 
reformers  and  republicans  in  a  common  exertion  to  overthrow  the , 
state."t 

The  three  gentlemen  referred  to,  Messrs.  Emmet,  Macnevin, 
and  O'Connor,  in  their  memoir,  seem  to  contradict  the  latter 
part  of  this  statement,  and  one  would  probably  attach  more  im- 
portance to  their  account  than  to  a  document  like  this  state  paper, 

•  Grattan. 

t  These  works  were  circulated  largely  by  the  Whig  party  in  England,  under 
the  sanction  of  Fox  and  Erskine,  and  the  other  eminent  leaders. 
X  Report,  p.  5. 


X  TNTRODUCTION. 

drawn  up  and  prepared  as  it  is  with  profound  skill  and  commen- 
surate falsehood.  Even  at  this  period,  when  the  Union  had 
commenced  to  be  a  private  association,  meeting  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  an  oath,  and  with  a  test  amended  in  the  way  that  it  has 
been  mentioned,  the  great  body  of  them,  so  far  from  contem- 
plating revolution  as  their  favored  alternative,  would  gladly  have 
accepted  a  reform  in  parliament,  and  the  removal  of  Catholic 
disabilities  as  the  fulfilment  of  their  highest  expectations  ;  such 
is  at  least  the  evidence  of  three  of  their  ablest  and  most  trusted 
leaders.  After  having  stated  that  the  suppression  of  the  Dublin 
society  of  United  Irishmen,  and  the  other  stringent  measures  had 
led  to  the  formation  of  new  bodies,  preserving  the  popular  name 
of  United  Irishmen,  but  differing  in  their  plan  and  with  an 
amended  test,  the  memoir  proceeds,  "  the  first  of  these  societies 
was,  as  we  best  recollect,  in  the  year  1795.  In  order  to  secure 
co-operation  and  uniformity  of  action,  they  organized  a  system 
of  committees,  baronial,  county,  provincial,  and  even  national ; 
but  it  was  long  before  the  skeleton  of  this  organization  was  filled 
up.  While  the  formation  of  these  societies  was  in  agitation,  the 
friends  of  liberty  were  gradually,  but  with  a  timid  step,  advancing 
towards  republicanism ;  they  began  to  be  convinced  that  it 
would  be  as  easy  to  obtain  a  revolution  as  a  reform,  so  obstinately 
was  the  latter  resisted,  and  as  this  conviction  impressed  itself  on 
their  minds  they  were  inclined  not  to  give  up  the  struggle,  but 
to  extend  their  views ;  it  was  for  this  reason  that  in  their  test  th^^, 
words  are  '  an  equal  representation  of  all  the  people  of  Ireland,' 
without  inserting  the  word  '  parliament.'  The  test  embraced 
both  the  republican  and  the  reformer,  and  left  to  future  circum- 
stances to  decide  to  which  the  common  strength  should  be  directed; 
but  still  the  iclwle  body  we  are  conmnced  woidd  stop  at  reform."* 
It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  give  the  details  of  the  change  in 
the  civil  organization  which  took  place  in  the  Union,  and  which 
was  completed  on  10th  May,  1795.  The  reader  will  find  them 
in  the  evidence  of  Thomas  Reynolds,  upon  the  trials  of  M'Cann, 
Byrne,  and  Bond.t  In  addition  to  the  change  of  the  test 
already  alluded  to,  an  oath  of  secrecy  was  added  ;  and  after  the 
meeting  of  the  executive  directory  of  the  society.  May,  1796, 

*  Macnevin's  Pieces  of  Irish  History,  176.     And  see  the  cross-examination  of 
Reynolds  on  Bond's  trial. 

I  See  post. 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

in  which  it  was  resolved  to  seek  for  foreign  aid,   the  military 
organization  grew  out  of  the  civil  system.* 

The  existence  of  the  military  organization  was  well  known  to 
Government,  from  April  14th,  1797,  by  means  of  Nicholas 
Maguan,  a  traitor,  who  was  colonel  in  the  military  system.  Dr. 
Macnevin  says  the  organization  commenced  to  be  military  in  the 
latter  end  of  1796,  and  we  find  this  Maguan  communicating  the 
details  of  the  Provincial  meeting  of  Ulster,  with  the  returns  of 
arms  and  ammunition,  of  the  date  of  the  14th  April,  1797, 
and  thenceforward  until  the  31st  May,  1798.  This  Maguan's 
secret  information  is  thus  prefaced  in  the  Appendix  of  the  Se- 
cret Committee  of  the  Commons  : — "  The  information  contained 
in  this  number  of  the  Appendix  was  received  from  Nicholas 
Maguan,  of  Saintfield,  in  the  county  of  Down,  who  was  him- 
self a  member  of  the  Provincial  and  County  Committees,  and 
also  a  Colonel  in  the  military  system  of  United  Irishmen.f     He 

*  Dr.  Macnevin  gives  the  following  account  of  the  system,  in  his  examination 
before  the  Secret  Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords,  on  the  7th  August,  1798 : — 

Q.  When  did  you  become  an  United  Irishman  ?  A.  About  September  or  Oc- 
tober, 1796,  I  became  a  member  of  the  close  society  of  United  Irishmen  ;  it  con- 
sisted of  societies,  at  first,  composed  of  thirty-six  members,  afterwards  these 
societies  were  reduced  to  twelve  members ;  each  society  of  twelve  chose  a  secre- 
tary, and  generally  a  treasurer. 

Q.  What  was  the  next  higher  society  ?  A.  The  Secretaries  of  five  societies 
formed  a  lower  Baronial  Committee ;  out  of  each  of  the  lower  Baronial  Com- 
mittees one  person  was  chosen  to  be  a  member  of  the  upper  Baronial,  each  of  the 
upper  Bai'onials  consisted  of  ten  members  thus  chosen.  The  next  superior  com- 
mittees were,  in  populous  towns.  District  Committees  ;  and  County  Committees, 
in  counties ;  these  were  composed  of  one  member  elected  from  each  Baronial. 
The  next  superior  Committees  were  the  Provincial  Committees,  composed  of  two 
members,  sometimes  three,  elected  from  each  County  Committee. 

Q.  How  was  the  Executive  chosen  ?  A.  Each  Provincial  Committee  elected 
five  persons  by  ballot,  the  secretary  examined  the  ballots,  and  reported  to  the 
persons  elected  their  appointment ;  but  made  no  report  of  the  election  to  the  Pro- 
vincial, who  were  thus  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  persons  who  composed  the  Execu- 
tive.    The  Executive  had  the  command  of  the  whole  body  thus  organized. 

Q.  What  was  the  organization  originally?  A.  At  first  it  was  purely  a  civil 
organization;  but  I  believe  it  was  military  in  Ulster,  about  the  latter  end  of  1796^ 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  military  organization  ?  A.  The  Secretary  of 
the  society  of  twelve  was  the  petty  officer,  that  is,  Serjeant  or  Corporal ;  the  De- 
legate of  five  societies  to  a  lower  Baronial  was  usually  the  Captain,  and  thus  had 
sLxty  men  under  his  command  ;  and  the  Delegate  of  ten  lower  Baronials  to  the 
Upper  or  District  Committee  was  usually  the  Colonel,  and  thus  a  battalion  was 
composed  of  six  hundred.  The  Colonels  of  each  county  sent  in  the  names  of 
three  persons  to  the  Executive,  one  of  whom  was  appointed  by  the  Executive 
Adjutant-General  of  the  county,  his  duty  was  to  receive  and  communicate  all 
military  orders  from  the  Executive.  ( App.  to  Report  of  the  Commons'  Committee, 
xxxi.) 

f  Dr.  Madden  gives  an  account  of  this  informer  which  would  lead  us  to  sup- 
pose that  the  representation  of  his  being  a  colonel  in  the  military  system  was  a 
falsehood.     "  This  Magin,  (for  such  was  his  name)  of  Saintfield,  in  the  county  of 


Xll  INTRODUCTION. 

was  present  at  each  of  the  meetings,  of  which  an  account  is  here 
given ;  and  from  time  to  time,  immediately  after  each  meeting, 
communicated  what  passed  thereat  to  the  Rev.  J.  Cleland,  a 
magistrate  of  that  county.  The  person  giving  this  information 
has  since  verified  it  upon  oath,  before  the  Committee  of  the 
Lords,  and  Mr.  Cleland  has  likewise  sworn  that  the  papers  pre- 
sented to  the  Committee  contain  the  exact  information  so  com- 
municated to  him  by  Maguan."  These  papers  commence  with 
a  return  of  the  arms  and  ammunition  in  the  possession  of  the 
Union,  in  the  ten  northern  counties,  and  is  dated  the  14th  April, 
1797.  There  is  a  great  mass  of  information  upon  the  numbers, 
organization,  and  objects  of  the  Union.  The  various  meetings 
of  the  northern  counties,  the  names  of  the  members  attending 
them,  and  the  business  transacted  are  given  in  detail,  and 
extends  from  the  above  date  to  the  31st  May,  1 798,  so  that  for  one 
whole  year  the  Executive  of  the  country  were  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  conspiracy  against  them  in  the  North  of 
Ireland ;  at  any  moment  they  could  have  arrested  the  active 
members  of  the  Union,  and  crushed  its  designs  in  that  part  of  the 
country  in  which  republicanism  could  count  its  staunchest  and 
most  numerous  friends,  and  if  the  government  had  proceeded 
with  vigor  there,  they  would  have  found  little  difficulty  in 
baffling  the  efforts  of  treason  in  the  other  provinces.  The  infor- 
mation, too,  which  they  obtained  through  the  profligate  agency 
of  this  double  traitor,  was  of  so  full  and  ample  a  nature  as  to 
have  enabled  them  to  prosecute  their  efforts  successfully,  in 
utterly  destroying  the  organization,  detecting  the  leaders,   and 

Down,  was  a  poor  man,  holding  a  few  acres  of  ground  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Saintfield.  If  the  services  rendered  by  Magin  are  to  be  estimated  by  the  amount 
of  their  reward  they  must  have  been  considerable.  The  followmg  items,  at  least, 
will  give  some  idea  of  the  estimation  in  which  they  were  held — 

August  16,   1798     J.    Magin,         ...  "       ...      £700     0    0 

„       17,     Do.  Do.  56  17    6 

Notwithstanding  the  immense  siun  of  money  lavished  on  him — from  being  an 
industrious,  honest  man,  previously  to  his  new  pursuits  as  an  informer,  he  became 
an  improvident,  indolent,  dissipated  person,  addicted  to  gambling,  and  in  the 
course  of  a  few  years  his  easily  gotten  wealth  was  gone,  and  he  had  to  earn  his 
bread  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Belfast,  as  a  common  working  gardener ;  and  in 
this  employment  he  died  there  a  few  years  ago." — Madden,  1  vol.  1  series,  p.  327. 
The  list  from  which  Dr.  Madden  has  given  the  above  items,  and  which  he  has  pub- 
lished in  the  appendix  to  his  interesting  volumes,  is  a  most  extraordinary  docu- 
ment. From  August,  1797,  to  Sept.,  1798,  government  allocated  £38,419  8s., 
to  the  payment  of  every  ruffian  who  had  a  conscience  and  a  country  to  sell,  or  a 
friend  to  betray.  There  are  some  names  in  the  list  which  will  add  new  honors  to 
the  proudest  families  in  the  land.  The  publication  is  a  benefit.  It  may  serve  to 
prevent  the  recurrence  of  the  practices  it  records. 


INTRODUCTION.  Xlll 

bringing  the  guilty  parties  to  justice.  It  is  difficult  to  understand 
the  policy  which  permitted  a  treasonable  conspiracy  to  proceed 
to  the  most  formidable  length,  to  organize  a  country,  to  spread 
the  ramifications  of  discontent  through  a  whole  people,  at  the 
same  time  that  the  government  of  the  country  were  well 
aware  of  its  existence,  watched  its  progress,  and  could  have 
crushed  it  at  a  blow.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  solid 
reasons  are  required  to  justify  this  conduct,  and  to  exonerate 
the  persons  who  then  governed  the  country  from  being  justly 
charged  with  the  brutal  wisdom  of  permitting  a  whole  people  to 
become  implicated  in  crime,  for  the  sinister  purpose  of  wresting 
from  them,  amidst  the  horrors  of  an  unsuccessful  rebellion,  their 
national  independence  and  honor.  This  is  a  charge  not  lightly  to 
be  made,  and  one  that  we  should  be  slow  to  believe.  But  there 
are  circumstances,  which  they,  who  defend  the  conduct  of  the 
government  of  that  day,  are  called  upon  to  explain,  and  the 
satisfactory  explanation  of  which  is  necessary  to  their  exculpa- 
tion. We  are  not  to  forget  that  the  Rev.  William  Jackson,  an 
emissary  of  France — a  man  chosen  for  the  guilty  object  of 
disseminating  treason,  and  scattering  the  seeds  of  rebellion 
amongst  a  loyal  people — was  permitted  to  visit  this  country, 
although  his  objects  were  known  to  the  English  minister,  while 
he  was  in  London  on  his  way  from  Paris.  He  was  guilty  of 
high  treason  in  the  capital  of  Great  Britain — that  treason  was 
known  to  the  government — the  object  of  his  mission  was  detailed 
to  them.  Yet  he  was  left  free  to  proceed  to  Ireland  to  tender 
the  assistance  of  a  foreign  power  for  the  purpose  of  overthrow- 
ing the  established  government.  There  was  no'  impediment 
offered  to  him.  He  was  not  made — as  in  mercy  to  the  people  of 
Ireland  he  ought  to  have  been  made — a  victim  to  his  own  uncon- 
summated  treason.  He  was  allowed  to  go  amongst  a  people — 
at  that  time  at  least  untouched  to  any  great  extent  by  what  were 
called  "  French  principles" — the  permitted  apostle  of  these 
principles,  the  corrupter,  and  the  tempter.  Coupling  this  with 
the  other  no  less  undoubted  fact,  that  from  the  moment  the 
military  organization  of  the  Union  commenced,  the  government 
had  the  most  accurate  information  of  its  whole  details,  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  that  rebellion  was  not  in  their  eyes,  in  some 
sort,  an  object  to  be  attained — not  a  calamity  to  be  avoided. 
And  if  such  a  policy  were  pursued,  it  is  not  too  much  to  lay  at  the 


XIV  INTRODUCTION. 

door  of  the  men  who  pursued  it  all  the  crimes  and  outrages  of  1 798. 
Mr.  Curran,  in  his  interesting  biography  of  his  father,  whilst  he 
appears  to  doubt  that  the  object  of  government  was  to  "foment 
conspiracy  in  order  that  the  excesses  to  which  it  would  lead, 
might  reconcile  the  nation  to  a  legislative  Union ;"  yet  adds, 
"that,  however  vulgar  and  improbable  the  supposition  may 
appear,  it  is  still  perhaps  the  only  one  that  can  satisfactorily 
explain  the  inconsistencies  and  infatuation  of  their  councils."* 

The  change  in  the  system  of  the  United  Irishmen  by  which 
a  military  organization  was  engrafted  upon  the  civil,  and  with 
which  it  has  been  seen  that  the  Government  was  perfectly 
acquainted,  took  place  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1796,  and 
was  hastened  by  several  important  events  which  occurred  during 
that  year.  The  vigorous  pressure  of  Government  at  home  and 
the  arrival  of  the  French  in  Bantry  Bay,  in  December,  1796, 
tended  equally  to  the  same  object.  By  the  former  the  people 
were  driven  to  despair,  and  by  the  latter  the  ruling  faction  was 
at  once  terrified  and  enraged.  The  severity  of  Government 
increased  the  popular  resentment,  and  the  fear  and  hatred  of 
France  gave  new  vigour  to  the  system  of  coercion  and  persecu- 
tion. The  Insurrection  Act  (Feb.  1796),  by  which,  to  use  the 
words  of  the  Secret  Committee,  "  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and 
council  were  enabled  upon  the  requisition  of  seven  magistrates 
of  any  court  assembled  at  a  session  of  the  peace  to  declare  the 
whole  or  any  part  thereof  to  be  in  a  state  of  disturbance,  within 
which  limits  the  law,  giving  increased  power  to  the  magistracy, 
was  to  have  effect,"  was  passed  through  Parliament  with  little 
opposition  except  from  Grattan,  Ponsonby,  and  Lord  Edward 
Fitzgerald.  This  bill  was  designated  by  Mr.  Ponsonby  "  the 
grave  of  the  Constitution."  It  might  more  correctly  be  termed 
'  the  cradle  of  rebellion.'  It  revived  the  ancient  despotism  of 
the  curfew  ;  it  enabled  a  partizan  and  factious  magistracy  to  put 
their  country  outside  the  law,  to  send  obnoxious  or  suspected 
persons  on  board  the  fleet,  and  under  its  sanction  and  the  pre- 
tence of  searching  for  arms,  to  force  open  the  houses  of  the 
peasants  at  any  hour  of  the  day  or  night.  An  indemnity  act  had 
previously  passed,  and  though  it  did  not  provide  for  the  commis- 
sion of  future  acts  of  violence,  it  bestowed  so  large  a  measure  of 

*  Ourran's  Life.   I  Vol.  p.  374. 


INTRODUCTION.  XV 

oblivion  for  the  past,  that  the  people  might  well  suppose  that  no 
crime  could  be  committed  against  tliera.  If  we  are  to  credit  the 
testimony  of  Grattan  and  Ponsonby,  the  prisoners  were  taken 
from  goal  just  before  the  assizes,  when  they  ought  to  have  been 
tried,  and  sent  on  board  the  King's  ships ;  and  the  magistrates  on 
conference  together  were  in  the  habit  at  their  pleasure  of  arrest- 
ing and  dragging  the  peasants  from  their  beds  at  midnight,  and 
transporting  them  without  trial  of  any  kind.  Lord  Carhampton 
was  distiguished  for  the  same  infamous  lawlessness.  For  crimes 
like  these  against  the  peace  of  the  community  and  the  con- 
stitution of  the  country,  the  parliament  provided  a  wholesale 
indemnity. 

These  two  measures — one  of  them  arming  the  magistracy  with 
extraordinary  powers,  and  the  other  indemnifying  them  for  gross 
misconduct  and  oppression,  and  thereby  indicating  the  impunity 
likely  to  attend  the  repetition  of  their  insolent  disregard  to  law 
— were  provocatives,  unhappily  too  strong  for  the  uneasy  spirits 
of  the  people.  The  Catholic  Defenders  complained,  and  it 
would  appear  but  too  justly,  that  the  provisions  of  the  Insurrec- 
tion Act  were  exclusively  aimed  at  them,  and  were  inoperative 
against  the  Peep-o '-day-boys,  whose  outrages  had  produced  their 
retributive  crimes.  They  felt  themselves  exposed  to  the  brutal 
and  inhuman  persecution  of  "  an  atrocious  banditti,  whose  bar- 
barity exceeded  that  of  modern  times,  and  brought  back  the 
recollection  of  the  ancient  ferocity  and  bloodshed."  They  had  no 
hope  from  Government ;  it  was  the  powerful  ally  of  triumphant 
faction  ;  and  if  thenceforward  they  became  ready  for  any  change, 
it  was  because  no  change  could  make  them  worse. 

Following  upon  these  acts  of  Parliament,  bills  were  brought  in 
for  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  and  for  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Yeomanry.  The  vigor  of  the  Executive  equalled 
that  of  the  Parliament.  Proclamations  were  issued  with  various 
preambles  but  with  one  intent — to  arm  the  Magistracy  and 
Yeomanry  with  unlimited  power  over  the  lives,  property,  and 
hberties  of  the  people. 

Lord  Camden's  proclamation  of  l7th  May,  1797,  giving 
increased  powers  to  the  military,  and  declaring  that  the  civil 
authority  was  ineffectual  to  preserve  the  public  peace,  let  loose 
upon  the  country  the  furious  passions  of  an  unbridled  soldiery. 
The  letters  of  Mr.  Pelham  the  secretary  to  the  commander-in-chief 


XVI  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Earl  of  Carhampton  (whose  name  acquired  fresh  historical 
celebrity  during  this  period)  imparted  to  him  unrestricted  power 
over  the  habitations  and  persons  of  the  people.*  The  military 
were  ordered  to  act  without  waiting  for  any  directions  from  civil 
magistrates  in  the  dispersion  of  all  meetings  which  they  might 
consider  tumultuous,  unlawful,  or  threatening  to  the  public  peace. 
The  houses  of  the  living  and  the  coffins  of  the  dead  were  alike 
violated  in  the  pursuit  of  hidden  arms.  Gay  meetings  were  dis- 
persed by  the  armed  rabble  who  overran  the  country.  Nor  was 
the  sombre  march  of  death  left  uninterrupted.  The  Executive  had 
detected  organization  in  the  funeral  train  and  arms  in  the  coffins : 
and  the  luxury  of  joy  and  sorrow  was  equally  prohibited  by  the 
martial  discretion  which  then  governed  the  people  with  a  rod  of 
iron.  In  fine,  the  country  was  a  pandemonium  of  military 
demons.  The  houses  of  the  peasantry  were  broken  open  at  night 
— men  were  whipped,  hanged,  or  shot  at  their  doors  without  a 
pretence  or  shadow  of  trial — the  cabins  of  humble  industry  were 
set  on  fire  by  drunken  military  mobs,  and  the  inhabitants  bayo- 
netted  or  shot  as  they  sought  to  escape  from  the  flames  of  their 
own  homesteads.  Lust,  rapine,  and  murder  rushed  through  the 
land  in  appalling  companionship  ; — and  yet,  speaking  of  the 
results  of  this  proclamation,  the  Report  of  the  Committee  calls  it  a 
measure  of  "  mercy  and  warning  "  and  is  surprised  that  it  was 
thrown  away  upon  the  rebellious  obduracy  of  an  affrighted, 
tortured,  maddened  population ! 

It  certainly  was  not  thrown  away  upon  them.  Its  fruits  were 
visible  enough  in  the  enormities  of  the  rebellion,  which  was 
hastily  advancing,  and  which  only  waited  for  a  few  more  "  well- 
timed  measures  to  procure  an  "  explosion."!  One  of  these 
measures,  which  deserve  notice  for  many  reasons,  was  the  death 
of  William  Orr.  His  conviction  was  not  that  of  a  common 
criminal,  which  might  be  either  the  just  retribution  of  crime,  or 
the  mistaken  severity  of  angry  justice.  It  was  felt  to  be  a 
deliberate  murder  perpetrated  by  the  government  of  the  day  for 
its  own  purposes  on  an  innocent  man.  It  was  looked  upon  as  a 
national   calamity:    for    Orr   was  popular  beyond  his  sphere, 

*  Pelham's  Letter,  Report  of,  See  Com.  App.  xi. 

t  Lord  Castlereagh  asked  one  of  the  state  prisoners  "  would  not  the  Union  have 
become  stronger  but  for  the  means  taken  to  make  it  explode?"  Pieces  of  Irish 
History,  p.  203. 


INTRODUCTION.  XVU 

and  respected  through  the  country,  as  one  well  endowed  with 
superior  qualifications  of  mind  and  body.  His  alleged  crime 
was  the  administering  the  United  Irishman's  oath  ;  and  the 
evidence  against  him  was  that  of  a  perjured  murderer.  He 
was  arraigned  in  October,  1797,  to  plead  to  an  indictment 
under  the  Insurrection  act.  He  was  found  guilty  by  a  drunken 
jury,  three  of  whom  made  affidavits  of  their  drunkenness  before 
the  judge  who  tried  him — he  was  recommended  to  mercy,  respited 
three  times,  and  hanged.* 

From  the  moment  of  this  judicial  murder,  until  the  extinction 
of  the  rebellion,  the  United  Irishmen  were  the  peculiar  objects  of 
the  vengeance  of  the  Executive.  The  attempt  of  the  French  at 
Bantry  Bay  stimulated  the  energy  of  Government ;  and  the  con- 
viction and  execution  of  Orr  preceded  but  by  a  few  months  the 
arrests  of  the  Leinster  delegates,  the  Dublin  Executive,  and  the 
second  Directory. 

The  former  were  arrested  at  the  house  of  Oliver  Bond,  in 
Lower  Bridge  Street,  on  the  12th  of  March,  1798.  The  parti- 
culars of  their  arrest  will  be  found  in  the  Evidence  of  Swan,  who 
was  one  of  the  confidential  agents  of  the  Castle  in  those  days.f 
Fourteen  of  the  delegates  fell  into  the  power  of  the  Government, 
all  of  whom  were  returned  from  localities  in  Leinster,  and  the 
principal  persons  amongst  them  were  William  Michael  Byrne, 
and  John  M'Cann.  Oliver  Bond  was  arrested  at  the  same 
time. 

These  arrests  were  followed  by  others  still  more  important. 
On  the  same  day,  Emmet,  Macnevin,  Jackson,  and  Sweet- 
man,  the  Leinster  Executive,  fell  into  the  power  of  Government, 
O'Connor  having  been  previously,  for  a  considerable  period,  a 
prisoner  in  the  Birmingham  Tower  in  the  Castle.  The  arrest  of 
these  gentlemen,  deprived  the  Union  of  its  ablest  leaders.  Neilson 
and  Lord  E.  Fitzgerald  were  the  only  persons  now  left  to  carry 
their  designs  into  execution,  excepting  the  two  unfortunate  bro- 
thers Henry  and  John  Sheares,  who  were  chosen  to  fill  the  vacan- 
cies, occasioned  by  the  arrests  of  the  members  of  the  Executive.! 

*  "  Remember  Orr"  was  a  watchword  of  rebellion,  and  medals  were  struck 
with  his  name. 

t  Trial  of  M'Cann,  post,  p. 

t  Madd.   United  Ir.,  2  v.,  2  series,  p.  293. 

C 


XVIU  INTRODUCTION. 

The  new  Directors  fixed  upon  the  23d  of  May  for  the  general 
rising ;  but  the  hopes  of  success  had  gradually  grown  less  with 
delay  and  disappointment,  and  the  rebellion  might  have  been  said 
to  have  been  crushed  before  it  commenced.  The  last  and  the 
greatest  blow  of  all  was  the  arrest  of  Lord  Edward  Fitzgerald, 
on  the  19th  of  May,  followed  by  that  of  the  Sheareses,  on  the 
21st,  and  of  Neilson,  on  the  23d. 

"  When  all  their  secrets  were  betrayed,  all  their  measures 
known,  and  all  their  leaders  seized,  the  United  Irishmen  allowed 
the  rebellion  to  begin.  It  had  been  too  long  languishing  and 
uncertain  to  inspire  the  people  with  confidence  or  enthusiasm  ;  it 
was  ill  concerted,  worse  directed,  received  with  coldness  by  some 
and  terror  by  others ;  there  was  division  between  its  leaders, 
there  was  disunion  amongst  its  followers,  it  had  neither  guidance 
nor  support.  In  fact,  it  might  have  been  said  to  have  been  dead 
before  its  birth,  had  not  the  Government  forced  it  into  premature 
existence,  by  the  stimulants  of  whipping  and  free  quarters."* 
Similar  testimony  of  the  efficacious  measures  of  Government  to 
elaborate  rebellion,  is  borne  by  the  Report  of  the  Secret  Com- 
mittee. This  document  says — "  It  appears  that  from  the 
vigorous  and  summary  expedients  resorted  to  by  Government,  and 
the  consequent  exertions  of  the  military,  the  leaders  found  them- 
selves reduced  to  the  alternative  of  immediate  insurrection  or  of 
being  deprived  of  the  means  on  which  they  relied  for  effecting  their 
purpose ;  and  that  to  this  cause  is  exclusively  to  be  attributed 
that  premature  and  desperate  effort,  the  rashness  of  which  has 
so  evidently  facilitated  its  suppression."t 

In  the  notes  of  Mr.  Emmet's  examination  before  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Lords,  August  10,  1798,  the  following  question 
and  answer  appear  : — 

Lord  Chancellor :  Pray,  Mr.  Emmet,  what  caused  the  late  in- 
surrection ? 

Emmet :  The  free  quarters,  the  house  burnings,  the  tortures 
and  the  military  executions  in  the  counties  of  Kildare,  Carlow, 
and  Wicklow. 

The  evidence  of  Mr  O'Connor  is  still  fuller  on  this  subject. 
In  his  examination  before  the  Commons'  Committee  of  Secrecy, 
he  was  asked  a  similar  question  : 

Q.  How  was  the  late  rising  occasioned  ? 

*  Introduction  to  Madden's  United  Irishmen.         t  Rep.  p.  30. 


INTRODUCTION.  XIX 

A.  I  liave  already  told  you  how  :  from  the  beginmng  of  the 
French  Revolution  the  measures  pursued  by  the  British  ministry 
and  the  Irish  Government  have  worked  up  the  minds  of  the 
people  of  Ireland  to  their  present  highly  irritated  state — at  one 
time  raising  their  hopes — at  another  time  blasting  these  hopes ; 
at  one  time  promising  Emancipation  and  Reform — and  at  another 
time  resisting  both  with  fire  and  sword,  burning  houses,  hanging, 
lashing,  and  torturing ;  means  unjustifiable  to  support  any  sys- 
tem, and  which  a  just  Government  could  not  for  one  instant  stand 
in  need  of.  These  no  human  patience  could  endure,  and  yet 
(from  a  conviction  that  they  were  practised  to  goad  the  people 
to  a  premature  attempt  to  put  down  their  oppressors)  as  long  as 
I  could  remain  I  used  every  means  in  my  power  to  endure  a 
little  longer  ;  but  when,  to  avoid  being  dispatched,  I  was  forced 
to  fly,  those  in  whose  hands  the  Executive  power  of  the  Union 
was  vested  yielded  to  the  pressing  solicitations  of  the  people  of 
the  most  oppressed  parts,  who  were  desirous  to  risk  their  lives  in 
order  to  rid  themselves  of  the  cruelties  they  hourly  experienced. 

Dr.  Macnevin  gives  the  same  testimony  in  his  examination 
(August  8,  1798)  before  the  same  Committee  : 

Sjjeaker :  Pray,  sir,  what  do  you  think  occasioned  the  insur- 
rection ? 

Macnevin :  The  insurrection  was  occasioned  by  the  house- 
burnings,  the  whippings  to  extort  confession,  the  torture  of 
various  kinds,  the  free  quarters,  and  the  murders  committed  upon 
the  people  by  the  magistrates  and  the  army. 

Speaker :   This  only  took  place  since  the  insurrection. 

Macnevin — It  is  more  than  twelve  months  since  these  horrors 
were  perpetrated  by  the  Antient  Britons  about  Newry  ;  and  long 
before  the  insurrection,  they  were  quite  common  through  the 
counties  of  Kildare  and  Carlow,  and  began  to  be  practised  with 
very  great  activity,  in  the  counties  of  Wicklow  and  Wexford. 

Curry  and  Latouche — Yes,  a  few  houses  were  burned. 

Macnevin — Gentlemen,  there  were  a  great  deal  more  than  a 
few  houses  burned.  *  *  *  * 

Lord  Castlereagh — Were  not  the  different  measures  of  the 
Government,  which  are  complained  of,  subsequent  to  various 
proceedings  of  the  United  Irishmen  ? 

Macnevin — Prior,  my  Lord,  to  most  of  them ;  if  your  Lord- 
ship desires  it,  I  will  prove  by  comparison  of  dates,  that  Govern- 


XX  INTRODUCTION. 

ment  throughout,  has  been  the  aggressor.     (His  Lordship  was 
not  curious.) 

There  can  be  no  difficulty  in  interpreting  the  phrases,  "  the 
vigorous  and  summary  expedients  resorted  to  by  Government,'' 
and  "  the  consequent  exertions  of  the  mihtary." 

By    a   proclamation   of  the   30th    March,    the   country  was 
declared  in  a  state  of   rebellion.     This  was  certainly  not  the 
truth,  for  no  blow  had  as  yet  been  struck,  nor  any  rising  taken 
place.     The  country  was  every  where  lighted  with  the  flames  of 
the  houses  of  the  people.     The  lash  resounded  on  all  sides ; 
half  strangulation,  pitch  caps,  and  triangles  were  in  use  through 
the  different  counties,  and  it  is  said,  on  competent  authority, 
were  most  used  where  the  people  were  least  disaffected.     But 
as  yet,   they  had  endured,   nor  had  they,   at  the  period  of  the 
proclamation,  been  goaded  into  open  resistance  by  the  mistaken 
severities  of  the  Government  party.     The  readers  of  the  history 
of  that  day,  will  well  remember  the  memorable  description  of  the 
army,   given  by  the  gallant  and  humane  Abercrombie,  "  They 
were,  from  their  licentiousness,  formidable  to  every  one  but  the 
enemy."     It   is    difficult,    in   one   glance,    to    comprehend   the 
whole  picture  of  misery  in  which  they  bore  such  conspicuous 
parts.     We  may  take,  as  an  example  of  the  result  of  letting 
them   loose    upon   the    people,    the   facts    connected   with  the 
rebellion    in   Wexford.      The    movement  there   was   isolated ; 
it  was  not  in  connection  with  that  going  on  elsewhere ;  it  was 
forced  into  being  by  the  scenes  of  tremendous  cruelty  which 
took  place  in  a  county  not  sworn  in  the   united  system,   not 
discontented,  and  not  disloyal.     But  the  fact  of  its  peaceful  and 
loyal  tendencies  had  no  effect  in  preserving  its  inhabitants  from 
the  visitation  of  free  quarters,  and  all  the  consequent  evils,  and 
as  though  to  justify  the  proclamation  of  the  30th  March,  Wex- 
ford was  subjected  to  the  discretion  of  the  soldiers.     "  They 
became  masters  of  every  house  in  the  country,  the  real  owners 
were  obliged  to  procure  them    every  necessary  they  thought 
proper  to  demand,  and  as  their  will  was  then  the  only  law,  and 
a  very  imperious  and  tyrannical  law  it  was,  the  people  dared  not, 
except  at  the  risk  of  their  lives,  complain  of  any  outrage  or 
brutality  of  which  their  savage  disposition  prompted  them  to  be 
guilty.     The  inevitable  consequence  was,  that  such  horrid  acts 
were  perpetrated,  such  shocking  scenes  were  exhibited,  as  must 


INTRODUCTION.  Xxi 

rouse  the  indignation,  and  provoke  the  abhorrence  of  all  not 
dead  to  human  feeling,  or  not  barbarised  by  unnatural  hatred  of 
their  fellow  creatures."*  Wexford  was  unvisited  by  the  Orange 
system  until  April,  1798,  and  it  was,  therefore,  untainted  by 
that  spirit  of  insurrectionary  fury  which  was  sure  to  be  evoked 
wherever  the  principles  and  practices  of  the  Orangemen  existed. 
The  truth  is,  the  people  believed  that  the  Orange  system  was 
formed  for  their  extermination.  It  was  a  mistake  pregnant  with 
evil,  for  the  spirit  of  resistance  which  it  created  was  furious  and 
sanguinary.  And  though,  doubtless,  it  was  imputing  to  that 
system  an  object  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  bring  home  to  it, 
the  conduct  of  the  Orangemen  furnished  some  excuse  for  the 
error.  With  Lord  Kingsborough  and  the  North  Cork  Militia, 
Orangeism  became  known,  for  the  first  time,  in  Wexford,  in 
April,  1798,  and  with  the  loyalty  of  the  system,  some  other 
attendant  blessings  were  bestowed  upon  the  population,  which 
worked  out  their  due  effects  in  the  following  months.  "  It  is 
said  that  the  North  Cork  Regiment  were  the  inventors,  but  they 
certainly  were  the  introducers  of  the  pitch  cap  torture  into 
Wexford.  Any  person  having  their  hair  cut  short  (and  there- 
fore called  a  Croppy,  by  which  appellation  the  soldiery  desig- 
nated a  United  Irishman,)  on  being  pointed  out  by  some  loyal 
neighbour,  was  immediately  seized  and  brought  into  a  guard- 
house, where  caps,  either  of  coarse  linen  or  strong  brown  paper, 
besmeared  inside  with  pitch,  were  kept  ready  for  service.  The 
unfortunate  victim  had  one  of  these,  well  heated,  compressed  on 
his  head,  and  when  judged  of  a  proper  degree  of  coolness,  so 
that  it  could  not  be  easily  pulled  off,  the  sufferer  was  turned  out 
amidst  the  horrid  acclamations  of  the  merciless  torturers,  and 
to  the  view  of  vast  numbers  of  people  who  generally  crowded 
about  the  guard-house  door,  attracted  by  the  afflicting  cries  of 
the  tormented.  Many  of  those  persecuted  in  this  manner,  expe- 
rienced additional  anguish,  from  the  melted  pitch  trickling  into 
their  eyes.  This  afforded  a  rare  addition  of  enjoyment  to  these 
keen  sportsmen,  who  reiterated  their  horrid  yells  of  exultation, 
on  the  repetition  of  the  several  accidents,  to  which  their  game 
was  liable  on  being  turned  out,  for,    in   the  fury  and  hurry  of 


*  Hay's  Histoi'y  of  the  Rebellion.     This  gentleman  was  an  eye  witness  of  what 
he  states. 


XXU  INTRODUCTION. 

escaping  from  the  ferocious  hands  of  these  more  than  savage 
barbarians,  the  blinded  victims  frequently  fell,  or  dashed  their 
heads  against  the  walls  in  their  way.  The  pain  of  disengaging 
this  pitch  cap  from  the  head,  must  be  intolerable.  The  hair  was 
often  torn  out  by  the  roots,  and,  not  unfrequently,  parts  of  the 
skin  were  so  scalded  or  blistered  as  to  adhere  to,  and  come  off 
along  with  it.  The  terror  and  dismay,  that  these  outrages  occa- 
sioned, are  inconceivable.  A  Serjeant  of  the  North  Cork,  named 
Tom  the  Devil,  was  most  ingenious  in  devising  new  modes  of 
torture.  Moistened  gunpowder  was  frequently  rubbed  into  the 
hair,  cut  close,  and  then  set  on  fire.  Some,  while  shearing  for 
this  purpose,  had  the  ears  nipped  off;  sometimes  an  entire  ear, 
and  often  both  ears  were  completely  cut  off,  and  many  lost  part 
of  their  noses  during  the  like  preparation.  But,  strange  to  tell, 
these  atrocities  were  publicly  practised,  without  the  least  reserve, 
in  open  day,  and  no  magistrate  or  officer  ever  interfered,  but 
shamefully  connived  at  this  extraordinary  mode  of  quieting  the 
people.  Females  were  also  exposed  to  the  grossest  insults  from 
the  military  ruffians.  Many  women  had  their  petticoats,  hand- 
kerchiefs, caps,  ribbons,  and  all  parts  of  their  dress  that  exhi- 
bited the  shade  of  green,  (considered  the  national  colour  of 
Ireland,)  torn  off,  and  their  ears  assailed  by  the  grossest 
ribaldry."* 

All  the  new  devices  of  cruelty,  it  is  observable,  were  of  Irish 
origin.  The  spirit  of  Orangeism  was  inventive  ;  for  whilst  the 
mercenary  soldiers  of  England  contented  themselves  with  the 
hackneyed  crimes  of  lust  and  murder,  the  Irish  Orangeman  em- 
ployed a  genius,  versed  in  torment,  in  the  discovery  of  some- 
thing new  and  striking  in  oppression.  If  the  reiteration  of 
scenes  and  deeds  like  these  were  successful  in  rousing  the 
hitherto  tranquil  county  of  Wexford,  one  may  imagine  that  in 
other  places,  where  the  United  Irishmen  had  succeeded  in 
extending  their  organization,  they  were  eminently  adapted  to 
drive  the  people  into  resistance.  Loyalty  was  a  virtue  whose 
fruits  were  burning  houses,  whippings,  and  half  hangings. 
Many  wretches  were  taken  from  their  cabins,  strung  up  as  if  to 
be  hanged,   indulged  in  the  first  agonies  of  strangulation,  and 

*  Hivy's  Irish  Rebellion,  and  ate  Life  of  Sampson  in  Maddou's  U.  Irishman. 
2  V.  2  series,  353. 


INTRODUCIXON.  XXUl 

then  respited  for  the  purpose  of  giving  information,  if  they  pos- 
sessed it,  or  inventing  it,   if  they  did  not.     Men  whose  trades 
brought  them  amongst  the  people,  such  as  carpenters  and  smiths, 
were  selected,  by  virtue  of  their  calling,  as  fit  objects  for  experi- 
mental torment,   and  many  of  them  expired  under  the  merciless 
lash  of  the  persecutor,  or  were  shot  by  the  ruthless  yeoman.    A 
Protestant  historian  of  the  rebellion  furnishes  us  with  the  fol- 
lowing details — "  I  now  heard  of  many  punishments  of  suspected 
persons,  both  by  flogging  and  strangulation,    being    put  into 
execution  in  the  barrack  yard  in  Ross,  to  extort  confessions  of 
guilt.     There  were  two  of  these  victims  brought  from  the  bar- 
rack yard  to  the  Court  House,  to  undergo  a  repetition  of  former 
punishments.     One  of  them  of  the  name  of  Driscol,  was  found 
in  Camlin  Wood,  near  Ross,  where  he  said  he  generally  wan- 
dered as  a  hermit ;  upon  him  were  found  two  Roman  Catholic 
prayer  books,  with  which,  it  wa8  supposed,  he  administered  oaths 
of    disloyalty ;    he  had  been    half  strangled  three  times,  and 
flogged  four  times  during  confinement,   but  to  no  purpose ;  his 
fellow-sufferer   was    one    Fitzpatrick,    of     Dunganstown,    near 
Sutton's  parish,  he   was  a  schoolmaster,  he  was  not  strangled, 
however,  but  flogged  with  great  severity,   and  it  was  not  with 
dry  eyes  that  I  saw  the  punishment  inflicted  upon  this  humble 
pioneer  of  literature.     About  a  month  after  the  battle,  both 
these  men  were   tried   before    General    Cowley,    and   matters 
appearing  no  farther  against  them  than  I  have  stated,  they  were 
liberated  from  a  close  and  filthy  confinement ;  the  General  pre- 
sented both  with  a  small  sum  of  money,  expressing  a  good-na- 
tured concern  that  he  could  not  then  give  them  greater  pecuniary 
assistance."*      The    Rev.  Mr.    Gordon,    a   clergyman    of    the 
Established  Church,  who  resided  near  Gorey,  in  Wexford,  and 
who  was   a  witness  of  the  various  extraordinary  facts  contained 
in  his  history,  aflfords  us  further  unimpeachable  testimony  in  aid 
of   the  statements  made   by  Messrs.    Emmet,    O'Connor   and 
Macnevin — "  Whether  an  insurrection,  in  the  then  existing  state 
of  the  kingdom,  would  have  taken  place  in  the  county  of  Wexford, 
or,  in  case  of  eruption,   how  far  less  formidable  and  sanguinary 
it  would  have  been  if  no  acts  of  severity  had  been  committed  by 
the  soldiery,  the  yeomen,    or  their  supplementary   associates, 

*  Alexander's  Account  of  the  Usbellion,  p.  28. 


XXIV  INTRODUCTION. 

without  the  direct  authority  of  their  superiors,  or  command  of 
the  magistrates,  is  a  question  I  am  not  able  positively  to  answer. 
In  the  neighbourhood  of  Gorey,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  the 
terror  of  the  whippings  was,  in  particular,  so  great,  that  the 
people  would  have  been  extremely  glad  to  renounce,  for  ever, 
all  notions  of  opposition  to  Government,  if  they  could  have 
been  assured  of  permission  to  remain  in  a  state  of  quietness. 
As  an  instance  of  this  terror,  I  shall  relate  the  following  fact — 
'  On  the  morning  of  the  23d  of  May,  a  labouring  man,  named 
Denis  M' Daniel,  came  to  my  house  with  looks  of  the  utmost 
consternation  and  dismay,  and  confessed  to  me  that  he  had  taken 
the  United  Irishman's  oath,  and  had  paid  for  a  pike,  with  which 
he  had  not  yet  been  furnished,  nine  pence  half-penny,  to  one 
Kilty,  a  smith,  who  had  administered  the  oath  to  him  and  many 
others.  Whilst  I  sent  my  eldest  son,  who  was  a  Lieutenant  of 
Yeomanry,  to  arrest  Kilty,  I  exhorted  M'Daniel  to  surrender 
himself  to  a  magistrate,  and  make  his  confession  ;  but  that  he 
positively  refused  to  do,  saying  that  he  should,  in  that  case,  he 
lashed  to  make  Mm  produce  a  jnlie  wldcJi  he^Mad  not,  and  to  con- 
fess what  he  knew  not.  I  then  advised  him,  as  the  only  alter- 
native, to  remain  quietly  at  home,  promising  that  if  he  should 
be  arrested  on  the  information  of  others,  I  would  represent  his 
case  to  the  magistrates.  He  took  my  advice ;  but  the  fear  of 
arrest  and  lashing  had  so  taken  possession  of  his  thoughts  that 
he  could  neither  eat  nor  sleep,  and  on  the  morning  of  the  25th 
he  fell  on  his  face  and  expired,  in  a  grove  near  my  house.'  "* 
We  may  imagine  the  frequency  and  horror  of  that  punishment, 
the  mere  contemplation  of  which,  could  produce  such  an  effect ; 
and  we  may  take  this  single  figure,  as  a  correct  specimen  of  the 
national  grouping  of  victims  and  tormentors,  which  shocked 
the  senses  of  humanity  in  that  memorable  year.  These  were 
the  practices — monstrous  punishments,  unheard  of  in  civilized 
Europe,  reproductions  of  the  cruelties  of  ancient  times,  or  copies 
from  the  despotisms  of  Asia — of  Irishmen  on  Irishmen,  at  the 
bidding,  and  to  serve  the  policy  of  the  English  Minister.  This 
mangling  of  the  body,  this  sport  extracted  from  the  agonies  of 
the  sufferer,  from  his  blinded  eyes  or  tortured  back — this  base 
disregard  to  female  honor,  did  more  to  produce  rebellion  than 
all  the  plottings,  conspiracies,  and  sedition  of  the  day. 

*   Gonlon's  History  of  the  Irish  Rebt'irum,  p.  87. 


INTRODUCTION.  XXV 

It  is  fortunately  no  part  of  the  design  of  this  Introduction — 
which  does  but  briefly  indicate  the  facts,  with  which  the  following 
trials  are  conversant — to  enter  upon  a  detail  of  the  scenes  of 
1798.  Remembering  the  rebuke  of  Abercrombie  to  the  army, 
we  may  easily  conceive  that  every  atrocity,  which  could  be 
devised  and  executed  by  licentious  power,  was  committed  by 
them,  and  we  are  not,  therefore,  to  be  much  astonished  at  the 
dreadful  retaliation  of  a  peasantry,  which  had  to  exact  vengeance 
for  the  murder,  or  violation,  of  the  dearest  relatives  and  friends. 
If  it  were  worth  argument  in  this  place,  it  would  be  easy  to 
show  that  the  savage  acts  of  the  people  were,  all  of  them,  sub- 
sequent to  some  inhuman  and  wholesale  cruelty,  practised  by  the 
yeomen  or  soldiery ;  and  that,  detestable  as  the  conduct  of  the 
rebels  was,  it  was  retributive,  not  aggressive.  But  there  are 
better  lessons  to  be  learned  from  the  history  of  that  day  than 
those  taught  by  faction  and  party  hatred.  The  people  were 
driven  into  a  rebellion  in  which — by  death  in  the  field,  on  the 
gallows,  or  by  torture — seventy  thousand  men  perished.  Ireland 
was  left  in  a  state  of  exhaustion,  and  not  of  tranquillity  ;  of 
rancorous  hatred  to  men  who  used  their  victory  as  a  scourge  ; 
so  deeply,  so  universally  disaffected  as  to  require,  ever  since, 
with  the  exception  of  a  short  period,  the  presence  of  a  large 
army  to  preserve  an  unwilling  dependency  to  the  Crown  of  Eng- 
land. The  rebellion  might  have  been  avoided :  the  concession 
of  favours,  which  have  since  been  yielded  to  the  people,  would 
have  satisfied  their  wishes,  and  completely  battled  the  designs  of 
the  republicans.  Concession  was  refused,  coercion  deliberately 
adopted,  and  the  Government  trusted  to  the  bloody  experiment 
of  unsuccessful  rebellion,  to  enable  them  to  crush  the  spirit  and 
complete  the  subjection  of  the  people.  The  experience  of  times 
near  our  own,  is  sufficient  evidence  of  the  failure  of  the  attempt. 

The  events  of  the  rebellion  passed  rapidly  and  bloodily  on. 
Two  months'  hard  fighting  demonstrated  the  superiority  of  mili- 
tary organization,  over  the  undisciplined  courage  of  the  people. 
The  Northern  insurrection  terminated  with  the  abortive  battles 
of  Antrim  and  Ballinahinch  ;  the  Leinster  rebellion,  after  a 
brief  but  desperate  career,  was  crushed  at  Vinegar  Hill,  and 
with  the  capitulation  of  Ovidstown,  on  the  12th  of  July,  the 
assemblages  of  armed  masses  may  be  said  to  have  ceased.  The 
last  aff'air  was  followed  by  the  massacre  of  a  body  of  the  United 


XXVI  INTRODUCTION. 

Irishmen  who  had  capitulated,  on  the  Rath  of  the  Curragh  of 
Kildare.  This  monstrous  act  was  committed,  if  we  are  to 
believe  the  authorities  on  the  subject,  and  I  see  no  reason  to 
doubt  them,  by  the  command  of  Major-General  Sir  James  Duff, 
and  principally  by  the  agency  of  Captain  Bagot's  yeomanry 
cavalry,  and  Lord  Roden's  Foxhunters.  The  same  cruelty 
which  had  forced  the  rebellion  into  being,  attended  it  in  all  its 
stages,  and  was  active  long  after  all  hope  had  departed  from  the 
rebel  camps.  There  never  was  an  insurrection  punished  more 
inhumanly.  The  despatches  of  the  military  authorities  are  full 
of  details  of  hangings,  shootings,  and  burnings,  whose  flippancy 
affords  too  pregnant  proof  of  the  frequency  of  savage  punish- 
ment. No  quarter  was  given  in  the  field,  and  the  fate  of  any 
prisoner,  brought  before  the  court-martials,  was  assured  and  cer- 
tain. Hurried  trial  and  instant  conviction  were  followed  by 
execution  in  every  case.  Never  did  justice  assume  so  hideous 
an  aspect.  Military  tribunals  of  furious  partizans,  sat  in  every 
quarter,  and  sent  thousands  to  instant  death.  The  infliction  of 
torture  was  unremitting ;  persons  of  rank  and  station  were 
executed  without  trial,  or  with  the  barbarous  mockery  of  trial 
which  is  furnished  by  drum-head  judicature.  Men  lost  all  reason, 
all  humanity  ;  the  people  groaned  under  the  frightful  infliction 
of  a  terrible  military  tyranny. 

When  the  rebellion  was  virtually  over,  but  whilst  court-mar- 
tials, and  special  commissions  were  still  doing  their  duty,  it 
occurred  to  some  of  the  state  prisoners  that  an  useful  and 
honorable  arrangement  might  be  made  with  Government,  by 
which  a  stop  should  be  put  to  the  effusion  of  blood,  a  general 
amnesty  be  procured,  and  the  people  be  restored  to  the  benefits 
and  protection  of  the  constitution.  These  gentlemen,  feeling 
that  they  participated  with  Government  in  the  guilt  of  producing 
the  insurrection,  and  aftrighted,  not  so  much  at  their  own  pos- 
sible fate  as  at  the  ghastly  spectacle  of  a  bleeding  country, 
were  anxious,  if  it  could  be  done,  to  restore  peace,  and  to 
reconcile  the  two  contending  parties.  An  opportunity  soon  pre- 
sented itself.  The  Executive  had  been  well  aware  of  the  plans 
of  the  United  Irishmen,  and  of  their  intercourse  with  France. 
They  possessed  a  great  mass  of  information  upon  the  whole 
system  of  the  Union,  its  members,  its  projects,  and  its  intrigues, 
and  they  were  anxious  to  impart  the  knowledge  they  possessed 


INTRODUCTION.  XXvii 

to  the  public ;  but  there  were  difficulties  in  their  way — their 
information  was  obtained  from  foreign  and  domestic  treachery, 
their  home  agents  were  vulgar  tools,  and  their  names  would 
have  given  but  little  authority  to  their  statements,  and  the  Go- 
vernment were  bound  by  agreement  not  to  disclose  those  parties 
connected  with  France  who  had  betrayed  at  once  the  secrets  of 
their  own  Government  and  of  the  Irish  Union.  Speculation 
has  been  busy  as  to  them ;  but  it  is  as  vain  as  useless  to  seek  to 
penetrate  the  secret  of  the  treachery,  by  whose  active  agency, 
the  English  Minister  became  acquainted  with  the  negotiations  of 
the  United  Irishmen  with  foreign  powers.  It  must  have  been 
deep,  and  extensive.  The  Government  being  thus  anxious  to 
give  all  the  information  they  possessed  to  the  world,  and  being 
at  the  same  time  deterred  from  proclaiming  its  sources,  it  became 
an  object  with  them  to  obtain  from  the  leaders  of  the  Union, 
then  in  prison,  a  full  disclosure  of  its  history,  organization,  and 
foreign  negotiations  ;  by  which  means  they  would  at  once  possess 
the  most  accurate  information,  on  the  best  possible  authority, 
and  be  enabled  to  make  whatever  use  they  pleased  of  it.  Va- 
rious motives  operated  with  Government  in  their  anxiety  upon 
this  matter.  They,  no  doubt,  wished  to  terrify  their  dependents 
by  a  display  of  the  vigorous  and  well-concerted  measures  which 
had  been  taken  to  subvert  their  authority,  and  to  shake  off  the 
English  yoke  ;*  and  they  wished  to  alarm  the  English  people 
by  a  detail  of  the  external  relations  of  the  Union.  Proposals 
were,  with  these  objects,  made  to  the  state  prisoners  in  Dublin, 
and  were  accepted  by  them.  They  saw  their  countrymen  daily 
devoted  to  death,  whilst  Ireland  gained  nothing  by  the  sacrifice, 
and  they  entered  at  once  into  a  treaty,  whose  faithful  fulfilment 
was  to  rescue  their  country  from  civil  and  military  execution, 
and  to  restore  to  the  people  of  Ireland  the  protection  of  the  civil 
law.  The  idea  of  this  compact  was  first  started  in  the  middle 
of  July.  John  and  Henry  Sheares  had  been  executed  ;  Michael 
William  Byrne  was  on  his  trial  and  there  was  no  doubt  of  its 
issue,  Oliver  Bond  was  to  be  tried  next,  and  the  special  com- 
mission which  was  sitting  was  proceeding  surely  and  rapidly  in 
its  work.  Pending  the  arrangement  of  the  treaty,  on  the  very 
day  on  which  it  was  all  but  completed,  and  contrary  to  its  spirit, 

*  Account  of  the  Coni^jact  in  Madden,  2  vol.  2  series,  p.  103. 


XXVlil  INTRODUCTION. 

Byrne  was  executed.  The  assent  of  Government  and  the  sig- 
nature of  the  state  prisoners  were,  however,  finally  obtained  on 
the  29th  of  July.  "  When  it  was  proposed  to  make  a  draught 
of  the  stipulations.  Lord  Castlereagh  laboured  to  produce  a  per- 
suasion of  its  being  superfluous,  since  every  thing  was  so  well 
understood,  and  would  be  honorably  construed.  The  deputies 
of  the  prisoners,  however,  thought  it  their  duty  to  commit  the 
substance,  at  least,  to  writing,  and  drew  up  a  paper  which  must 
be  considered  as  a  memorandum,  and  not  a  detail  of  the  agree- 
ment. The  following  is  that  paper : — '  That  the  undersigned 
state  prisoners  in  the  three  prisons  of  Newgate,  Kihnainham, 
and  Bridewell,  engage  to  give  every  information  in  their  power 
of  the  whole  of  the  internal  transactions  of  the  United  Irishmen ; 
and  that  each  of  the  prisoners  shall  give  detailed  information  of 
evei'y  transaction  that  has  passed  between  the  United  Irishmen 
and  foreign  states  ;  but  that  the  prisoners  are  not,  by  naming  or 
describing,  to  implicate  any  person  whatever  ;  and  that  they  are 
ready  to  emigrate  to  such  country  as  shall  be  agreed  upon  be- 
tween them  and  Government,  and  give  security  not  to  return  to 
this  country  without  the  permission  of  Government,  and  not  to 
pass  into  an  enemy's  country — if,  on  doing  this,  they  are  to  be 
freed  from  prosecution,  and  also  Mr.  Bond  be  permitted  to 
take  the  benefit  of  this  proposal.  The  state  prisoners  also 
hope  that  the  benefit  of  this  proposal  may  be  extended  to  such 
persons  in  custody  or  not  in  custody,  as  may  choose  to  benefit 
by  it.'  "* 

By  the  fulfilment  of  this  compact,  on  the  part  of  the  leaders 
of  the  United  Irishmen,  the  Government  gained  their  object. 
They  were  enabled  to  conceal  the  real  channels  of  their  pre- 
vious information ;  and  to  put  forward  the  state  prisoners,  to 
vouch  for  what  they  wished  to  make  publicly  known,  and  which 
they  could  thus  authenticate.  They  wished  to  escape  from,  or 
to  palliate  the  infamy  of  their  conduct — their  house  burnings, 
torturings,  arbitrary  banishments,  and  licensed  murders,  by 
proving  that  the  United  Irishmen  entertained  the  idea  of  effect- 
ing a  separation  from  England,  a  design  which  the  favourers  of 
English  power  at  that  period  would  consider  as  sufficient  provo- 
cation for  the  violation  of  all  principles,  and  the  infliction  of  all 

*  Macnevin's  Pieces   of  Irish  History,  p.  157. 


INTRODUCTION.  XXIX 

horrors.*  This  they  effected  to  the  fullest  extent.  The  leaders 
were  examined  before  the  Committees  of  the  Lords  and  Com- 
mons, and  garbled  extracts  of  their  evidence,  were  published  by 
Government.  The  case  was  made  out  to  the  satisfaction  of  its 
partizans,  and  a  load  of  obloquy  thrown  upon  the  unfortunate 
gentlemen,  who,  in  thus  submitting  to  the  searching  examination 
of  the  Committees,  and  undertaking  to  transport  themselves 
from  their  country,  expected  to  have  been  instrumental  in  restor- 
ing peace,  and  stopping  the  effusion  of  blood.  It  was  not  their 
fault  that  they  did  not  succeed  in  their  design. 

It  may  be  now  proper  to  consider,  for  a  moment,  what  was  the 
object  of  this  treaty,  what  conditions  it  contained,  and  how  the  two 
contracting  parties  fulfilled  their  relative  parts.  The  leaders 
amongst  the  prisoners  have  given  their  statements,  and  few  will  be 
inclined  to  doubt  their  sincerity  or  truth.  They  were  men  of  unim- 
peached  personal  honor,  and,  as  the  subsequent  career  of  several 
of  them  fully  proves,  with  virtues  and  genius  capable  of  serving 
and  conferring  distinction  on  any  country  but  that  which  an 
infamous  Government  would  not  permit  them  to  live  in.  None 
but  those  furious  bigots  who  can  see  in  Emmet,  Macnevin  and 
Sampson  only  "  unhanged  traitors,"  will  doubt  the  veracity  of 
their  account  of  this  very  important  negotiation. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  idea  of  ensuring  their  personal  safety 
did  not  enter  into  their  views.  Against  many  of  them,  no  evi- 
dence of  any  kind  was  in  the  possession  of  Government.  Neil- 
son,  who  was  one  of  the  movers  in  this  business,  was  assured  by 
Mr.  Curran,  and  his  other  friends,  that  there  was  no  evidence  to 
be  adduced  against  him,  which  could  in  any  way  affect  his  lifcf 
"  Those  who  know  him  best  will  readily  give  him  credit,  when 
he  says,  that  the  failure  of  the  insurrection,  and  the  daily  exe- 
cution of  his  virtuous  friends  in  town  and  country,  martyrs  to 
the  same  cause,  had,  so  far  from  creating  a  terror  of  death, 
actually  made  life  a  burthen  to  him.  He  further  declares,  that 
so  far  as  he  knows,  there  was  not  a  prisoner  who  took  part  in 
this  measure,  but  was  actuated  chiefly,  if  not  solely,  by  conside- 
rations of  a  nature  far  from  selfish  or  personal ;  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  them  were,  and  had  long  been,  imprisoned  merely 

*  Macnevin's  Pieces  of  Irish  History,  p.  157. 

t  Madden's  United  Irishmen,  1  vol.  2  series,  p.  153. 


XXX  INTRODUCTION. 

on  suspicion  ;  nor  was  there  any  idea  whatever  of  bringing  them 
to  trial,  at  that  or  any  other  time."*  Their  object  was  to  stop 
the  effusion  of  blood,  and  when  the  idea  of  a  treaty  was  first 
started,  it  was  received  more  gladly  from  the  hope  of  saving  the 
life  of  Byrne.  That  was  sacrificed  by  the  treacherous  cruelty 
of  Government.  But  yet  the  prisoners  imagined,  that  much 
good  might  still  be  eff"ected,  and  that  mercy  might,  though  late, 
visit  their  afflicted  country,  as  the  price  of  their  disclosures  and 
self  exile.  They  saw  that  the  insurrection  was  quenched  in  the 
blood  of  the  people,  and  that  whilst  four  or  five  counties  were 
making  head  against  the  whole  of  the  King's  forces,  no  effectual 
attempt  was  made  to  assist  them  through  the  rest  of  the  country; 
that  the  valour  and  courage  of  the  people,  were  rendered  fruit- 
less, from  the  want  of  military  knowledge  and  capacity  in  their 
leaders ;  that  the  arrest  of  the  deputies,  and  the  ablest  agents 
of  the  Union  had  completely  destroyed  its  power  for  effecting 
any  thing  of  consequence  ;  that  from  the  several  defeats  endured 
at  New  Ross,  Vinegar  Hill,  and  in  the  North  of  Ireland,  fur- 
ther resistance  was  useless  and  ruinous ;  that  from  the  gross  and 
profligate  corruption  of  juries,  and  the  unconstitutional  conduct 
of  judges,  justice  was  perverted  into  a  monstrous  engine  of 
murder  ;  that  Government  was  already  aware  of  all  their  internal 
and  external  transactions ;  and  finally,  their  ears  were  daily 
assailed  with  the  accounts  of  military  and  civil  executions,  and 
their  eyes  pained,  by  seeing  their  friends  led  out  to  die  upon 
gibbets.  To  stop  this  waste  of  life,  to  arrest  the  furious  ven- 
geance of  Government,  they  agreed  to  disclose  the  history  of 
their  previous  efforts,  and  to  abandon  their  country,  their  families, 
and  their  friends.t 

To  impute  to  them  treachery  to  the  cause  they  had  served  so 
long,  and  to  the  men  whom  they  had  led  into  treason  and  rebel- 
lion, was  a  most  gross  and  unfounded  imputation,  one  worthy  of 
the  Government  of  that  day,  but  not  to  be  revived  nor  listened 
to,  at  this  time.  The  character  of  men,  who,  whatever  was 
their  rashness,  and  whatever  was  their  guilt,  are  still  revered  by 
their  fellow-countrymen,  is  so  valuable  that  it  compels  me  to 
dwell  upon  the  vindication  of  their   motives  longer  than  may  be 

*  Maddens  United  Irishmen,  1  vol.  2 series,  p.  153. 

t  Macnevin's  account  of  the  Compact  in  Madden's  book,  2  vol.  2  series,  p.  112. 


INTRODUCTION.  XXxi 

thought  necessary.     Emmet  sums  them  up  thus — "  We  entered 
into  this  agreement  the  more  readily,  because  it  appeared  to  us 
that,  by  it,  the  public  cause  lost  nothing.     We  knew,  from  the 
different  examinations  of  the  state  prisoners,   before  the  Privy 
Council,  and  from  conversations  with  Ministers,  that  Govern- 
ment was  already  in  possession  of  all  the  important  knowledge, 
which  they  could  obtain  from  us.     Whence  they  derived  their 
information,  was  not  entirely  known  to  us  ;  but  it  is  now  manifest 
that  Reynolds,  Magin,  and  Hughes,   not  to  speak  of  the  minor 
informers,  had  put  them  in  possession  of  every  material  fact 
respecting  the  internal  state  of  the  Union;  and  it  was  from 
particular  circumstances,   well  known  to  one  of  us,  and  entirely 
believed  by  the  rest,  that  its  external  relations  had  been  betrayed 
to  the  English  Cabinet,  through  the  agency  of  a  foreigner,  with 
whom  we  had  negotiated.     This  was  even  so  little  disguised, 
that,  on  the  preceding  1 2th  of  March,  the  contents  of  a  memoir 
which  had  been  prepared  by  one  of  the  undersigned,*  at  Ham- 
burgh, and  transmitted  thence  to  Paris,  were  minutely  detailed  to 
him  by  Mr.  Cooke.    Nevertheless,  those  with  whom  we  negotiated, 
seemed  extremely  anxious  for  our  communications.    Their  reasons 
for  this  anxiety  may  have  been  many,  but  two  particularly  suo-- 
gested  themselves  to  our  minds — they  obviously  wished  to  give 
proof  to  the  enemies  of  an  Irish  Republic,  and  of  Irish  Indepen- 
dence, of  the  facts  with  which  they  were  themselves  well  acquaint- 
ed,  while,  at  the   same   time,  they  concealed  from  the  world 
their  real  sources  of  intelligence.     Nor  do  we  believe  we  are 
uncharitable  in  attributing  to  them  the  hope  and  wish  of  ren- 
dering  unpopular  and   suspected,    men   in   whom    ithe   United 
Irishmen  had  been  accustomed  to  place  almost  unbounded  con- 
fidence. 

The  injurious  consequences  of  Government  succeeding  in  both 
these  objects,  were  merely  personal ;  and,  as  they  were  no  more, 
though  they  were  revolting  and  hateful  to  the  last  degree,  we 
did  not  hesitate  to  devote  ourselves,  that  we  might  make  terms 
for  our  country ."T  Another  motive,  too,  impelled  them  to  their 
decision.  They  felt  anxious  to  vindicate  the  cause  of  the 
United  Irishmen,  and  they  conceived  that  this  could  be  done,  by 
a  fair  and  candid  development,  of  the  objects  of  the   Union. 

*  Dr.  Macnevin.         f  Madden,  2  vol.  2  series,  103. 


XXXll  IXTRODUCTION. 

These  objects  centred  in  the  liberation  of  Ireland.  But  in  that 
evil  and  anerry  time,  the  United  Lnshmen  had  been  accused  of 
every  thino"  that  was  rile  and  infamous  ;  thev  had  been  denounced 
in  Parliament  as  a  "  blasted  society  " — infidels  in  religion — a  nest 
of  selfish  traitors.  They  wished  to  prove  the  falsehood  of  these 
charges ;  and  they  conceived  that  they  could  prove  this,  even  in 
the  council-chambers  and  committee-rooms  of  their  enemies,  by  a 
fair  and  manlv  avowal  of  their  opinions  and  their  designs.  x\nd 
it  is  submitted,  that  their  vindication  was  perfect.  The  evidence 
thev  o-ave  is  a  most  valuable  record — full  of  startlinof  truths — and 
full  of  bold  theories,  that  mav  not  be  impossible.  Thev  tausfht 
the  Government  how  this  country  might  be  ruled,  with  advantage 
to  itself,  and  honor  to  its  rulers  :  and,  furthermore,  they  taught 
their  countrymen  how  to  achieve,  and  how  to  use  a  rational  free- 
dom. The  Government  cannot  be  said  to  have  g-ained  much  bv 
the  treaty.  31isrepresentation,  false  and  garbled  extracts  of  the 
evidence  of  the  prisoners,  achieved  a  miserable  and  temporary 
triumph  ;  but  truth  soon  emerged  from  the  mist  that  was  thrown 
around  it ;  and  the  historian  and  the  pohtician  can  consult,  with 
advantage,  the  singular  details  given  by  these  able  and  distin- 
guished men,  in  the  searching  examinations  to  which  they  were 
subjected. 

Such  being  the  objects  of  the  State  prisoners,  and  of  the  Go- 
vernment, in  entering  upon  this  treaty,  let  us  see  how  it  was  ful- 
filled on  the  part  of  the  former.  In  the  first  place,  they  prepared 
an  ample  memoir  of  the  foundation  and  progress  of  the  Union — 
of  its  original  and  subsequent  organization — and  of  its  internal 
and  external  policy.  This  was  not  acceptable  to  Government, 
though  Mr.  Cooke  acknowleged  it  was  a  fulfilment  of  the  strict 
letter  of  the  aorreement.  However,  he  suffffested  that  it  mio-ht 
be  altered,  according  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant's  wish,  so  that  it 
should  not  be  a  vindication  of  the  United  Irishmen.  The  Lord 
Lieutenant  was  not  pleased,  because  it  was  a  defence  of  the 
Union.  How  could  it  be  otherwise  than  a  defence  ?  It  reviewed 
the  history  of  the  United  Irishmen  from  the  beginning,  when 
their  objects  were  strictly  constitutional,  and  the  conduct  of  their 
proceedings  accordinor  to  the  law,  down  to  that  period  when  the 
aggressions  of  power  upon  popular  liberty  compelled  them  to 
abandon  the  safe  course  of  open  discussion,  for  the  devious  an<l 
dangerous  paths  of  conspiracy  and  intrigue.     It  detailed,  the 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXlll 

several  aggressive  acts  of  Government — the  proscription  of  the 
friends  of  reform — the  final  extinction  of  the  Volunteers* — the 
penal  laws  against  meeting  by  delegates — the  Insurrection  and 
Indemnity  acts,  and  the  other  stringent  measures  which  were 
passed  with  the  avowed  or  latent  object  of  crushing  the  United 
Irishmen.  The  memoir  dwelt  particularly  upon  the  provisions 
of  the  Insurrection  Act,  which  punished  the  administering  the 
United  Irishmen's  oath  with  death,  and  g-ave  masristrates  the 
power  of  proclaiming  counties,  and  restoring  peace  to  unquiet 
districts  by  breaking  into  the  cabins  between  sunrise  and  sunset, 
seizing  the  inmates,  sending  them  on  board  tenders,  and  trans- 
porting them,  or  wounding  the  national  honour  where  it  is  most 
keenly  susceptible,  by  outraging  the  delicacy  of  women.  In  fine, 
it  made  a  case — so  strong  and  convincincf,  and  indicating  the  exist- 
ence  of  a  state  of  things,  which  would  have  made  submission  a 
greater  crime  than  resistance.  This  might  do  very  well  as  a 
piece  of  history,  but  it  was  not  the  kind  of  document  adapted  to 
the  uses  of  the  castle.  The  authorities  there  would  gladly  have 
proved  the  naked  fact,  that  there  had  existed  for  a  long  time  a 
deep-seated  hostility  to  England  amongst  the  United  Irishmen. 
The  memoir  did  this  ;  but  it  did  something  more.  It  vindicated 
that  hostility,  in  demonstrating-  the  existence  of  a  powerful  cause 
for  such  a  sentiment ;  it  proved  the  ancient  truth,  that  tyranny, 
cruelty,  and  oppression  will  beget  the  monstrous  progeny  of  evU 
passions,  hatred,  and  furious  resistance.  And  this  demonstration 
was  not  required  by  Lord  Castlereagh  or  Lord  Clare.  A  change, 
a  slight  alteration,  the  muffling  of  a  few  truths,  the  insinua- 
tion of  a  few  falsehoods,  would  have  rendered  the  memoir  a 
document  of  vast  utility.  But  the  state  prisoners  were  men  of 
rough  honesty.  They  promised  the  truth,  and  they  told  it.  They 
would  make  no  change,  nor  introduce  the  slightest  alloy  into  the 
pure  and  unvarnished  facts.  And,  therefore,  the  Government  hit 
upon  an  expedient,  by  which  they  could  make  their  own  case, 
by  which  the  power  of  garbling,  colouring,  and  suppressino:  should 
be  in  their  own  power.  The  ablest  men  amongst  the  prisoners, 
Emmet,  Macnevin,  O'  Connor,  and  Neilson,  were  summoned  before 

*  For  the  brilliant  career  of  this  body,  the  reader  may  consult  the  books  wTitten 
about  that  period,  which  are  filled  with  the  most  exaggerated  praises  and  eastern 
flattery.  To  me  they  appear  to  have  been  a  collection  of  men  who,  with  gre;it 
power,  effected  little,  and  could  not  keep  what  they  had  gotten.  They  might  have 
had  liberty — they  took  a  few  privileges ;  and  were  soon  dispersed,  leaving  nothing 
but  a  name  behind  them. 


XXXIV  INTRODUCTION. 

the  committees  of  the  Lords  and  Commons,  and  were  examined 
by  the  members  composing  them,  on  the  subject  of  the  Union,  its 
views,  and  its  organizations.  The  questions  were  ingeniously  put, 
and  were  fully  answered.  If  the  Government  desired  the  truth, 
it  was  told  to  them — if  they  sought  to  learn  the  means  of  future 
good  government,  these  were  supplied  by  men,  who  knew  Ireland 
intimately.  But  that  such  was  not  their  object,  was  speedily 
proved.  The  publication  of  the  Report  of  the  Commons'  com- 
mittee followed  quickly  in  the  order  of  time  ;  and  it  was  a  docu- 
ment quite  unparalleled  in  the  proverbial  falsehood  of  state 
papers  for  the  utter  disingenousness  of  its  texture.  Misrepre- 
sentation, false  induction,  perversion  of  history,  combined  to  make 
it  a  diplomatic  wonder — wondrous  from  the  utter  recklessness  of 
its  composition.  The  newspapers  in  the  service  of  Government 
were  filled  with  grarbled  extracts  from  the  testimonv  of  the  state 
prisoners,  untrue  statements  of  their  evidence,  and,  in  many 
instances,  containing  the  direct  reverse  of  its  import.  So  far  was 
this  carried,  that — though  it  was  a  part  of  the  compact  that  names 
were  not  to  be  disclosed — the  Government  papers  represented 
the  prisoners  as  having  given  those  of  their  associates  in 
treason.  This  falsehood  was  not  endured  in  silence,  for  three 
of  the  gentlemen  managed  to  obtain  means  of  contradicting  it  by 
an  advertisement,  which  they  published  in  two  of  the  Dublin 
newspapers,  to  the  following  effect  :* 

"  Having  read,  in  the  different  newspapers,  publications  pre- 
tending to  be  abstracts  of  the  report  of  the  Secret  Committee  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  of  our  depositions  before  the  committees 
of  the  Lords  and  Commons,  we  feel  ourselves  called  upon  to  assure 
the  public  they  are  gross,  and  to  us  astonishing  misrepresenta- 
tions, not  only  unsupported  by  but,  in  many  instances,  directly 
contradictory  to  the  facts  we  really  stated  on  those  occasions. 
We  further  assure  our  friends  that  in  no  instance  did  the  name 
of  any  individual  escape  from  us ;  on  the  contrary,  we  always 
refused  answering  such  questions  as  might  tend  to  implicate  any 
person  whatever,  conformably  to  the  agreement  entered  into  by 
the  state  prisoners  with  Government. 

"  Arthur  O'Connor. 

"  Thomas  Addis  Emmet. 

"  William  James  Macnevin." 

*  Macnevin's  Pieces  of  Irish  History,  161. 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXV 

This  temperate  refutation  excited  a  perfect  tempest  of  furious 
invective  in  the  Irish  House  of  Commons.  Mr.  M'Naughten, 
and  "  two  virulent  barristers,  Francis  Hutcheson  and  Cun- 
nyngham  Plunket,"*  humanely  suggested  summary  execution 
as  the  fittest  measure  to  be  adopted  towards  the  rash  asser- 
tions of  their  own  honour — a  proposition  not  much  more 
execrable  than  the  one  made  on  the  previous  24th  March, 
by  Lord  Farnham,  who  submitted  "  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
House  whether  it  would  not  be  right  and  necessary,  that 
military  executions  should  have  retrospect  to  the  persons  who 
were  then  confined,  and  that  they  should  he  disposed  of  as 
expeditiously  as  possible."'\  The  humanity  of  Lord  Castle- 
reagh  interposed  itself  between  this  brutal  suggestion,  and  the 
prisoners  ;  and  on  the  former  occasion,  military  execution  was  not 
done.  The  prisoners  were  merely  remanded  to  close  confine- 
ment, and  the  visits  of  their  friends  and  relatives  strictly  for- 
bidden. During  this  confinement,  the  Government  proceeded,  in 
its  career  of  blood  and  calumny.  In  September,  an  act  passed 
the  houses  of  parliament,  professedly  to  carry  into  efl'ect  the 
conditions  of  the  treaty.  That  such  was  not  its  object  must  be 
clear  from  the  fact,  that  so  far  from  permitting  the  state  prisoners 
to  emigrate,  according  to  these  conditions,  twenty  of  the  parties 
who  signed  the  compact,  were  sent  to  Scotland,  and  kept  for 
upwards  of  four  years,  in  close  confinement.  That  the  real 
object  of  this  miscalled  act  of  amnesty,  was  to  put  upon  the 
shameless  records  of  the  legislature  a  statutary  falsehood — 
a  gross  calumny  upon  the  leaders  of  the  United  Irishmen,  is 
apparent  from  its  preamble.  The  act  referred  to  is  the  38th 
Geo.  III.  c.  78,  which  recites — "  Whereas,  during  the  wicked 
and  unnatural  rebellion  which  hath  broken  out  in  this  kingdom, 
several  persons  who  had  taken  up  arms  against  His  Majesty,  or 
had  traitorously  and  wickedly  corresponded  with  and  adhered  to 
his  enemies,  or  had  been  otherwise  engaged  in  fomenting  the 
said  rebellion,  and  acting  therein,  have  been  apprehended  and 

*  Pieces  of  Irish  History,  162. — Irish  Patriotism  in  those  days  was  a  strange 
thing.  The  eloquent  opponent  of  a  Union  is  found,  buf  a  year,  before  the  "  virulent " 
advocate  for  doing  military  execution  on  men  at  least  as  honest  as  himself ! 

t  Debates  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Commons'  Journal,  March,  1793.  This 
proposal  is  justified  in  the  Dublin  University  Magazine,  for  December,  1843,  p. 
690  ;  and  the  classic  writer  humanely  suggests,  that  the  Government,  in  acceding 
to  his  proposition,  would  have  but  followed  the  example  of  Cicero,  and  would  have 
done  well  in  reviving  the  tragedy  of  the  TuUianum  ! 


XXXVl  INTRODUCTION. 

committed  to  prison  for  such  their  treasons,  several  of  ivhom 
being  conscious  of  their  flagrant  and  enormous  guilty  have  expressed 
their  contrition  for  the  same,  and  have  most  humbly  implored  his 
Majesty's  mercy,  and  that  he  ivould  be  graciously  pleased  to  order 
all  further  prosecution  against  them  to  stop  and  surcease,  and  to 
grant  his  royal  pardon  to  them,  on  condition  of  their  being  trans- 
ported, &fc.,  to  any  foreign  country,  ^c." 

Let  the  reader  who  feels  any  interest  in  the  characters  of  men, 
who  suffered,  for  what  they  at  all  events  conceived  to  be,  the 
happiness  of  this  country,  turn  to  the  memoir  which  they  prepared 
in  fulfilment  of  their  arrangement  with  Government,  and  which 
it  is  to  be  remembered  was  rejected  by  the  agent  of  Government, 
because  it  was  a  vindication  of  the  United  Irishmen,  and  he  will 
certainly  find  no  proof  of  these  statements — no  whimpering  con- 
trition— no  mean  demand  of  pardon.*  Again,  let  the  examina- 
tions of  the  prisoners — even  in  the  appendix  of  wilful  falsehood 
which  follows  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Secrecy — be  read, 
and  the  same  bold  honesty,  the  same  probably  rash  adherence  to 
dangerous  convictions,  will  be  found  to  give  a  direct  contradic- 
tion to  this  preamble.  The  Government,  bad  as  it  was,  did  not 
ask  for  any  mean  submissions ;  they  were  content  with  falsely 
representing  that  they  had  been  made.  Dr.  Macnevin,  in  reply 
to  a  question  of  the  Archbishop  of  Cashel,  suggested  by  pious 
horror  at  the  independent  notions  of  an  acknowledged  traitor, 
said,  "  I  have  not,  I  own,  any  idea  of  sacrificing  the  interests  of 
Ireland  to  those  of  any  other  country  ;  nor  why  we  should  not  in 
that,  as  in  every  other  respect,  be  as  free  as  the  English 
themselves."t  This  is  not  the  language  of  recantation. 
The  Speaker  asked  the  same  person  whether  the  people 
would  consider  themselves  bound  hereafter  by  the  oaths  of  the 
Union  ?  He  was  answered  thus — "  I,  who  am  going  to  be  an 
emigrant  from  my  country,  am  dispensed  from  answering  that 
question  ;  yet  I  acknowledge,  that  were  I  to  stay,  I  would  think 
myself  bound  by  them."|  Does  this  speak  consciousness  of  guilt, 
contrition,  or  abject  supplication  ?  That  the  prisoners  themselves 
were  utterly  unaware  of  the  pusillanimity  imputed,  by  the 
preamble  of  the  38th  Geo.  III.,  to  them,  may  be  inferred  from 
the  steps  they  took  to  refute  the  calumny,  and  by  the  threats 

*  Pieces  of  Irish  History,  142.         f  Ibid,  196.         %   Ibid,  211 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXVll 

which  were  made,  if  they  persisted  in  publishing  their  denial. 
Having,  by  chance,  seen  a  copy  of  the  act  in  a  London  newspaper, 
one  of  the  calumniated  parties,  Samuel  Neilson,  prepared  a  letter 
of  refutation  addressed  to  the  editor,  stating  that  there  had 
been  no  retraction — no  expression  of  sorrow  for  "  unnatural 
rebellion" — no  demand  for  pardon.  But  that  the  state  prisoners 
had  entered  into  a  treaty  with  Government,  by  which  they 
expected  to  stop  the  effusion  of  blood,  and  to  terminate  the 
afflictions  of  the  country.  A  copy  of  this  letter  was  sent  to  Lord 
Castlereagh ;  and,  as  the  state  prisoners  had  stipulated  for  free- 
dom of  publication,  they  did  not  anticipate  any  interference  on 
the  part  of  the  Executive.  This  was  ridiculous  confidence, 
though,  probably  taking  into  consideration  the  subsequent  con- 
duct of  that  unrighteous  body,  it  was  wise  not  to  have  stimulated 
their  appetite  for  oppression.  Shortly  after  Lord  Castlereagh 
had  received  the  communication  from  Neilson,  the  latter  was 
visited  by  two  of  the  Government  agents,  Mr.  Marsden  and  the 
indefatigable  Cooke,  who  conveyed  to  him  a  message  direct  from 
the  Lord  Lieutenant.  He  was  told,  that  if  he  published 
that  letter,  it  was  the  firm  determination  of  the  Lord  Lieu- 
tenant to  abandon  the  conditions  of  the  comijact  and  to  cause 
civil  and  military  executions  to  proceed  as  before  !  These  were 
the  men  who  ruled  our  country  at  that  time,  men  capable  of 
recording  falsehood  in  their  abominable  edicts,  and  of  preventing 
its  refutation  by  threatening  the  sword  and  the  rope  !  These 
were  the  men  against  whose  unholy  rule,  treason  and  rebellion 
were  "  unnatural !"  This  message  was  not  from  the  remorseless 
Camden  ;  it  proceeded  from  the  lips  of  Lord  Cornwallis.  It  is, 
however,  but  just  to  him  to  remember,  that  he  was  surrounded  by 
such  advisers  as  Castlereagh  ;  and  that  he  was  aided  and  assisted 
in  the  infamy  of  his  conduct  by  the  House  of  Commons,  where 
propositions,  equal  in  remorseless  cruelty  to  his  own,  had  been 
repeatedly  and  gravely  made  by  men  who  assumed  to  be  pecu- 
liarly the  '  friends  of  the  people.'  In  the  long  list  of  oppres- 
sions inflicted  by  the  Anglo- Irish  Government  upon  its  victims, 
there  is  scarcely  one  of  them,  more  full  of  refined  cruelty  than 
this.  The  character  of  men  who  were  dear  to  the  people  was 
traduced  in  a  solemn  act  of  Parliament ;  they  were  represented 
as  repentant  sinners  against  their  king ;  as  having  confessed  their 
flagrant  and  enormous  guilt;   and  as  having  implored  pardon. 


XXXVm  INTRODUCTION. 

The  truth  was  no  where  told  that  they  had  consented  to  abandon 
their  country,  and  to  submit  to  the  searching  inquisition  of  two 
parliamentary  committees,  for  the  purpose  of  saving  the  lives  of 
their  countrymen.  Their  motive  was  grossly  misrepresented;  and 
when  indignant  honour  would  have  repudiated  the  calumny,  it  was 
silenced  by  the  threat  of  resuming  the  career  of  decimation,  by 
the  aid  of  drumhead  judges  and  military  hangmen.  That  was, 
indeed,  a  time  of  horror,  full  of  pregnant  warning  to  future 
Governments,  as  well  as  to  impatient  patriotism ;  preaching 
forbearance  and  mercy  to  the  one,  and  caution  and  much 
endurance  to  the  other.  The  wise  humanity  of  our  days  will 
not  refuse  the  lesson. 

A  Government  capable  of  using  this  artifice,  was  capable  of 
any  wrong.  Twenty  of  the  gentlemen  who  entered  into  the 
compact,  and  who  fulfilled  its  conditions  with  exemplary  correct- 
ness, after  some  interval  of  confinement  in  the  prisons  of  Dublin 
— hateful  to  them  as  the  scenes  of  the  suff'erings,  and  death  of 
their  friends — were  transmitted  to  Fort  St.  George,  in  Scotland, 
where,  for  four  years,  they  were,  in  breach  of  all  honour  and  for- 
getfulness  of  all  treaties,  kept  closely  imprisoned.  The  humanity 
of  the  governor,  Colonel  Stuart,  a  Scotchman,  contended  with 
his  duty  and  instructions  in  rendering  their  condition  at  all 
endurable.  In  this  list  of  exiles — driven  from  Ireland  by  its 
factious  Government — were  Thomas  Addis  Emmett,  William 
James  Macnevin,  and  William  Sampson.*  After  more  than  four 
years'  imprisonment,  those  gentlemen,  as  well  as  the  other  pri- 
soners, obtained  their  freedom,  and  their  subsequent  fate  will  be 
found  detailed  at  large  in  Dr.  Madden's  very  interesting  memoirs 
of  the  United  Irishmen,  to  which  I  have  been  so  much  indebted 
for  the  facts  in  the  preceding  pages. 

It  is  hoped,  that  though  of  necessity,  the  events  growing  out 
of  the  existence  of  the  society  of  the  United  Irishmen,  have  been 
but  briefly  dealt  with  in  this  Introduction,  its  perusal  will  enable 
the  reader  to  a])preciate  more  fully  the  interesting  trials  which  , 

*  Of  these  three  men,  the  first  became  the  leading  member  of  the  bar  of  New 
York  ;  thn  second,  one  of  the  first  medical  men  in  that  city ;  and  the  third,  an  , 
advocate  of  great  distinction  in  the  honourable  profession  of  wliich  Thomas  Addis  j 
Emmet  was  the  greatest  ornament.  Is  this  any  comment  upon  tlie  Government, 
whose  shrewdness  found  in  them  unsafe  citizens  of  a  state,  administered  by  a  Clare 
and  a  Castlereagh  ?  A  late  writer,  in  speaking  of  the  leaders  of  the  rebelli(m  of 
1798,  says  that  they  were  "  almost  without  exception,  shallow,  and  conceited 
sciolists."     University  Magazine  (December,  1843),  p.  6S5. 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXIX 

follow.     They  have  been  arranged  with  care  ;  the  best  reports 
in  all  cases  have  been  obtained ;  and  they  are  printed  in  the  order 
in  which  they  occurred.     Their  succession,  too,  will  serve  to 
indicate  the  progress  of  the  assaults  made  by  Government  upon 
public  liberty — from  the  attack  upon  the  press  in  the  prosecutior 
of  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,   down  to  the  various  trials  for 
high   treason   with    which   they    sought    to    consummate    their 
triumph,  over  the  principles  and  projects,  of  the  United  Irishmen. 
The  men  with  whom  this  Introduction  and  these  trials  are 
conversant,  were,  no  doubt,  traitors  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  the 
details,  both  here  and  there  given,  may  impart  a  meaning  to  that 
word,  more  restricted  than  that  which  it  enjoys  in  the  comprehen 
sive  language  of  a  statute,  or  in  the  unlimited  phraseology  of  a 
court  sycophant,  or  an  Irish  loyalist.    No  man  will  unconditionally 
defend  the  rash  projects  in  which  they  embarked;  but  let  us  not 
be  blinded — there  is  no  motive  for  such  meanness  now — to  the 
unbounded  devotion  and  disinterested  zeal  with  which  they  sought, 
after  their  own  fashion,  to  serve  their  country.     And  let  it  be 
always  remembered,  that  if  they  abandoned  the  straight  and  open 
course  of  the  constitution,  it  was  when  an  arbitrary,  a  dishonest, 
and  sanguinary  government  had  made  its  ancient  ways  unsafe  and 
perilous  to  the  lovers  of  civil  and  religious  equality. 


ARCHIBALD   HAMILTON   ROWAN. 


Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  the  descendant  of  a  distinguished 
Scotch  family,  which  settled  in  Ireland,  in  the  reign  of  James  the  First, 
was  celebrated  for  the  leading  part  he  took  in  the  struggles  of  Irish 
nationality.  He  was  born  in  London,  on  the  12th  May,  1751  (old 
style).  He  was  connected  with  the  noble  family  of  Abercorn,  and 
descended  from  Sir  James  Hamilton,  who  was  afterwards  created 
Viscount  Claneboye,  and  whose  son  became  Earl  of  ClanbrassiL* 

His  father,  Gawin  Hamilton,  had  gone  to  settle  in  London  in 
1750,  where  Archibald  Hamilton  was  born.  His  name  of  Rowan 
was  taken,  together  with  the  fortune,  of  his  maternal  grandfather, 
who  had  assumed  the  care  of  his  education  and  advancement,  and  who 
was  a  man  of  sturdy  independence,  in  his  notions  both  of  politics,  and 
religion. 

The  events  of  Rowan's  life,  previous  to  his  coming  to  reside  per- 
manently in  Ireland,  though  amusing  and  strange  enough,  may  be 
briefly  noticed  in  this  place.  He  received  a  good  education,  which 
was  superintended  by  Mr.  Rowan,  his  grandfather,  until  his  death,  in 
1767.  After  this  event,  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan  was  sent  to 
Wesminister  school,  where  his  proficiency  was  not  very  great,  though 
he  was  observed,  as  a  boy,  anxious  for  distinction,  as  well  as  for  being 
fond  of  gaiety ;  and  ready  for  any  frolic,  however  wild  or  dangerous. 
His  father  took  a  house  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  school,  and  young 
Rowan  met,  in  his  circle,  a  society  from  whose  teaching  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  he  derived  the  peculiar  political  bias,  which  influenced 
his  future  career.  Amongst  the  frequent  visitors  at  his  father's  house, 
was  Dr.  Charles  Lucas,  the  celebrated  Irish  patriot. 

From  Westminister,  Rowan  was  removed  to  Cambridge.  Whilst 
a  member  of  this  university,  his  life  was  gay  and  dissipated.  He  had 
a  command  of  money,  kept  hunters,  mixed  in  what  is  called  the  best 

*  Both  these  titles  became  extinct  on  the  death  of  Henry,  the  third  Lord 
Claneboye  and  second  Earl  of  Clanbrassil ;  but  the  former  was  revived  in  1800, 
when  it  was  conferred  on  Sir  James  S.  Blackwood  (connected  by  marriage  with 
the  family),  together  with  a  sum  of  £13,000,  as  a  reward  for  his  vote  in  favour  of 
the  Legislative  Union.  The  title  of  Clanbrassil  has  been  also  revived,  and  is  that 
by  virtue  of  which,  Lord  Roden  (another  branch  of  the  family)  sits  in  the  House 
of  Lords. 


42  MEMOIR  OF 

society,  and  took  part  in  some  of  these  extraordinary  freaks  in  which 
the  young  aristocracy  loved  to  indulge.  He  carried  to  Cambridge 
the  same  wildness  which  distinguished  him  at  Westminister ;  and  was 
rusticated  for  throwing  some  obnoxious  personage  into  the  Cam.  The 
Duke  of  Manchester  gave  him  a  commission  in  the  Grenadiers  of  the 
Huntingdon  Militia,  and,  whilst  a  Captain  in  that  regiment,  he  ob- 
tained considerable  eclat  by  swimming  in  his  full  regimentals,  with  a 
fusee  slung  at  his  back,  from  Gossport  to  Plymouth.  His  college  and 
military  life  abound  in  none,  but  trivial  details,  like  these. 

During  his  college  career,  he  accepted  the  post  of  secretary  to  Sir 
Charles  Montague,  who  was  governor  of  South  Carolina.  With  him 
he  sailed  to  Charleston,  where,  however,  he  remained  only  three 
months.  In  his  autobiography,  he  gives  us  no  reason  for  his  return, 
which  he  notices  thus  : — 

"  Having  spent  nearly  three  months  at  Charleston,  I  got  a  passage 
from  Captain  Hayward  to  England,  on  board  the  Swallow  ;  taking 
with  me  a  racoon,  an  oppossum  and  a  young  bear.  After  a  very 
rough  passage,  I  landed  at  Portsmouth — my  racoon  dead,  my  bear 
washed  overboard,  and  my  opossum  lost  in  the  cable  tier — and  I  re- 
turned to  Cambridge." 

The  character  of  Rowan  was  given  in  the  World  newspaper  by 
Topham  Beauclere,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  his  at  Cambridge,  and 
who  published  a  series  of  characters  of  the  different  young  men  about 
London  who  had  been  educated  at  Westminister  and  Eton.  The  fol- 
lowing extracts  will  serve  to  show  the  estimate,  in  which  he  was  held 
by  his  fashionable  intimates  : — 

"  With  more  than  boyish  aptitudes  and  abilities,  he  should  not  have 
been  lost  amongst  boys.  His  incessant  intrepidity,  his  restless  curi- 
osity, his  undertaking  spirit,  all  indicated  early  maturity — all  should 
have  led  to  pursuits,  if  not  better,  at  least  of  more  spirit  and  moment, 
than  the  mere  mechanism  of  the  dead  languages.  *  * 

"  Besides,  Hamilton  was  to  be  found  in  every  daring  oddity.  Lords 
Burlington  and  Kent,  in  all  their  rage  for  pediments,  were  nothing  to 
him  in  a  rage  for  pediments.  For  often  has  the  morning  caught  him 
scaling  the  high  pediments  of  the  school  door,  and,  at  the  peril  of  his  life, 
clambering  down,  opening  the  door  within,  before  the  boy  who  kept 
the  gate  came  with  the  key.*  His  evenings  set  upon  no  less  perils  ; 
in  pranks  with  gunpowder,  in  leaping  from  unusual  heights  into 
tlie  Thames !  *  *  *  * 

"  Had  he  been  sent  to  Woolwich,  he  might  have  come  out,  if  not  a 

*  This  is  wretched  stuff;  but  it  shows  the  description  of  society  and  the  pursuits  | 
of  the  future  politician,  who  was  foremost  in  teaching,  and  in  suffering  for,  the  ' 
bold  and  noble  doctrines  of  "  Universal  Emancipation." — Ed. 


ARCHIBALD  HAUHLTON  ROWAN.  43 

rival  of  the  Duke  of  Richmond,  at  least  a  first-rate  engineer.  In 
economic  arts  and  improvements,  nothing  less  than  national,  he  might 
have  been  the  Duke  of  Bridgewater  of  Ireland.  Had  the  sea  been 
his  profession,  Lord  Mulgrave  might  have  been  less  alone  in  the  rare 
union  of  science  and  enterprize.  *  *  *  * 

"  To  Cambridge,  therefore,  he  went ;  where,  having  pursued  his 
studies,  as  it  is  called,  in  a  ratio  inverse  and  descending,  he  might  have 
gone  on  from  bad  to  worse,  and  so,  as  many  do,  putting  a  grave  face 
upon  it,  he  might  have  had  his  degree.  But  his  animal  spirits  and 
love  of  bustle  could  not  go  off  thus  undistinguished  ;  and  so,  after  coolly 
attempting  to  throw  a  tutor  into  the  Cam — after  shaking  all  Cambridge 
from  its  propriety,  by  a  night's  frolic,  in  which  he  climbed  the  sign- 
posts and  changed  the  principal  signs,  he  was  rusticated  until  the  good 
humour  of  the  University  returning,  he  was  readmitted  and  enabled 
to  satisfy  his  grandfather's  will.*  Through  the  intercourse  of  private 
life,  he  is  very  amiable.  The  same  suavity  of  speech,  courteous  atten- 
tions, and  general  good  nature  he  had  when  a  boy,  are  continued  and 
improved.  Good  qualities  the  more  to  be  pi-ized  as  the  less  probable 
from  his  bold  and  eager  temper,  from  the  turbulence  of  his  wishes  and 
the  hurry  of  his  pursuits." 

IS  all  this  affected  description  be  true,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  it,  as  we  find  it  copied,  without  any  disclaimer  in  Rowan's  Au- 
tobiography, it  presents  to  us  the  image  of  a  gay  young  man,  leading 
fasliion  in  fashion's  silliest  shapes,  and  fitter  to  be  the  founder  of  the 
modern  school  of  aristocratic  rioters,  than  to  be  the  grave  and  ener- 
getic reformer  of  political  grievances,  and  the  martyr  of  strong  and 
generous  convictions ;  but  still  with  good  qualities  that  promised  a 
release,  sooner  or  later,  from  the  giddiness  of  his  youthful  pursuits. 
He  continued,  however,  for  some  years,  the  career  which  his  rank, 
fortune  and  disposition  opened  to  him  ;  and  having  visited  France 
during  the  period  of  the  American  war,  he  met  with  George  Robert 
Fitzgerald,  and  enjoyed  the  unenviable  honour  of  acting  as  his  friend 
in  a  duel  which  he  fought  with  Major  Baggs,  in  which  both  principals 
behaved  badly,  and  both  were  sevei-ely  wounded.  The  French 
authorities  made  a  great  deal  of  noise  about  the  matter,  but  in  the  end 
did  nothing,  and  Mr.  Rowan  escaped  the  consequences  of  his  folly. 
Shortly  after  this  last  feat,  he  was  appointed  by  the  Marquis  de 
Pombal,  then  minister  in  Portugal,  to  a  lieutenant-colonelcy  in  the 
Poi'tuguese  service,  but  the  Marquis  having  been  disgraced,  Mr.  Rowan 
never  served,  and  spent  the  next  few  years  in  the  gratification  of  a 
roving  habit  of  mind — visited  Tangiers,  and  became  intimate  with  its 

*  Mr.  Rowan  had  directed  him  to  graduate  in  Cambridge. 


44  MEMOIR  OF 

governor — went  to  Paris  and  amused  himself  to  the  top  of  his  bent ; 
in  fact,  went  everywhere,  saw  everything,  and  did  a  great  many 
eccentricities,  which  he  details  with  amusing  simplicity  in  his  Auto- 
biography. The  period,  however,  was  come,  when,  if  he  did  not 
altogether  throw  aside  the  wild  habit  of  his  youth,  the  first  step  was 
taken,  and  the  foundation  was  laid  of  a  future  course  of  useful  exertion 
and  honourable  sufFei'ing.     Speaking  of  this  period,  he  says  : — 

"  When  I  mentioned  my  mother's  family  at  Pinnel,  I  alluded  to  a 
young  Irish  lady,  then  a  visitor  with  her.  I  should  explain  how 
Miss  Dawson  had  become  almost  an  inmate  in  her  family — my  mo- 
ther had  the  strongest  friendship  for  her  father,  Walter  Dawson, 
Esq.,  of  Lisanisk,  near  Carrickmacross ;  this  gentleman  had  deter- 
mined to  give  a  London  education  to  Sarah  Anne,  his  only  daughter, 
who  was  possessed  of  great  personal  beauty  and  innate  elegance  of 
manner ;  and,  at  the  age  of  thirteen,  he  brought  her  over  from  Ire- 
land, and  placed  her  at  one  of  the  most  celebrated  schools.  During 
the  vacation  she  resided  with  my  mother,  who  thus  became  extremely 
attached  to  her ;  and  when,  at  the  age  of  sixteen,  she  left  school,  and 
had  not  yet  returned  to  her  parents ;  my  sister's  absence  made  her 
affection  and  society  more  than  ever  necessary  to  my  mother.  At  my 
mother's  earnest  entreaty.  Miss  Dawson  consented  to  accompany  her 
to  France.  I  saw  in  her  so  much  good  sense  and  propriety,  in  many 
different  and  embarrassing  situations,  that  I  determined  on  offering 
her  my  hand,  and  wrote  to  her  father  in  Ireland  for  his  permission, 
to  which  he  consented,  and  in  1781,  we  were  married  by  the  Dutch 
Ambassador's  chaplain  in  Paris,  and  for  the  purpose  of  registry  we 
set  out  immediately  for  London  where  we  were  married  a  second 
time,  in  St.  James's  parish  church,  from  my  mother's  house  in  Gi*eat 
Marlborough-street." 

He  returned  to  Paris,  and  I'esided  with  his  mother  in  a  house 
which  she  had  taken  from  Lord  Southwell,  where  his  eldest  son, 
Gawin  Hamilton,  was  born.  He  remained  for  two  years  in  France 
after  his  marriage,  and  after  the  expiration  of  that  period  came  to 
reside  in  Ireland.  He  purchased  Rathcoffey,  in  the  county  of  Kil- 
dare,  in  1784.  Nor  did  his  active  mind  remain  long  unemployed, 
though  its  activity  found  occupation  altogether  different  from  scaling 
pediments,  fighting  duels,  or  swimming  tutors.  Before  he  was  long 
in  Ireland  he  strenuously  took  up  the  case  of  Mary  Neale,  a  young 
girl  of  fourteen  years  of  age,  who  had  been  grossly  abused  in  the 
house  of  a  Mrs.  Lewellyn,  and  whose  abuser  was  one  in  high  station. 
The  woman  was  prosecuted  and  sentenced  to  death,  and  one  Edge- 
worth,  who  had  induced  a  girl  to  swear  a  robbery  against  Neale,  his 
wife,  and  the  injured  child,  was  also  tried  and  sentenced  to  a  year's 


ARCHIBALD    HAMILTON    ROWAN.  45 

imprisonment  and  the  pillory.  These  wretches  were  fit  objects  for 
the  mercy  of  the  Government,  and  received  a  pardon,  to  the  amaze- 
ment and  indignation  of  the  public,  who  felt  the  iniquity  of  the 
interference  more  keenly  as  it  was  supposed  that  the  infamous  Lord 
Carhampton,  (who  was  suspected  of  being  a  principal  in  the  trans- 
action), had  influenced  Lord  Westmorland  to  this  abuse  of  mercy.* 
This  was  resisted  by  Mr.  Rowan,  and  his  opposition  to  this  extension 
of  pardon  to  such  atrocious  criminals,  together  with  his  active  exer- 
tions in  bringing  them  to  justice,  earned  for  him  a  considerable  share 
of  popular  affection,  and  general  esteem.  Sir  Jonah  Barrington,  in 
his  Personal  Sketches,  gives  a  ludicrous  account  of  the  excess  to 
which  Mr.  Rowan  carried  his  enthusiam  on  the  part  of  Mary  Neale  ;  but 
Sir  Jonah's  statements  are  rather  more  valuable  for  their  wit,  than 
their  truth.  One  passage  is  worth  preserving,  as  a  description  of  Mr. 
Rowan,  done  in  the  broad  style  of  caricature  for  which  Barrington  is 
celebrated — "  A  man  who  might  serve  as  a  model  for  Hercules  ;  his 
gigantic  limbs  conveying  the  idea  of  almost  supernatural  strength ; 
his  shoulders,  arms,  and  broad  chest  were  the  very  emblems  of  mus- 
cular energy;  and  his  flat,  rough  countenance,  overshadowed  by 
enormous  dark  eyebrows,  and  deeply  furrowed  by  strong  lines  of 
vigor  and  fortitude,  completed  one  of  the  finest,  yet  most  formidable 
figures  I  ever  beheld." 

Mr.  Rowan  entered  the  ranks  of  the  Volunteers,  as  a  private,  in 
his  father's  Company,  at  Killyleagh,  and  attended  the  last  review  of 
that  body  which  took  place  in  the  plain  of  the  Falls  near  Belfast,  on 
the  12th  and  13th  of  July,  1784,  and  was  appointed  by  the  line  to 
present  an  address,  (which  he  had  drawn  up  himself,)  to  Lord  Char- 
lemont,  "  from  a  body  of  armed  citizens  determined  to  continue  that 
association."  The  Earl  of  Charlemont — always  elegant,  and  always 
weak,  a  hero-bigot — declined  to  receive  the  address  ;  but  said  that 
they  would  shortly  meet  in  their  civil  capacity  and  pass  an  address  to 
Parliament  for  a  I'eform  of  abuses.  Rowan  made  a  characteristic 
reply,  "  that  citizens  with  Brown  Bess  on  their  shoulders  Avere  more 
likely  to  be  attended  to."f  In  May,  1786,  he  was  elected  to  com- 
mand the  Killyleagh  Volunteers.     In  every  political  movement,  and 

*  The  following  lines  were  written  at  the  time  : — 

PETITION    OF    THE    STATUE    OF    JUSTICE    ON    THE    CASTLE    GATE. 

Since  Justice  is  now  but  a  pageant  of  state, 
Remove  me,  I  pray  you,  from  this  Castle  gate. 
Since  the  rape  of  an  infant,  and  blackest  of  crimes, 
Are  objects  of  mercy  in  these  blessed  times 
On  the  front  of  their  prison,  or  hell  let  me  dwell  in, 
For  a  pardon  is  granted  to  Madam  Lewellyn. 

t  Autobiography  of  A.  H.  Rowan,   1 17- 


46  MEMOIR  OF 

every  military  display  of  the  national  army,  he  took  an  active  part. 
It  suited  the  character  of  his  mind,  and  the    tone  of  his  politics. 
Brave  and  impetuous,  an  ardent  lover  of  liberty ;  he  delighted  in  the 
display  of  armed  citizens,  by  whose  courage  and  constancy  he  vainly 
hoped  that  she  might  be  boldly  attained,  and  nobly  preserved.     In 
1790,  he  became  a  member  of  the  Northern  Whig  Club,  formed  | 
under  the  sanction  of  Lord  Charlemont,  and  mainly  by  the  exertions  \ 
of  Dr.  Halliday,  a  man  of  great  Avit  and  general  attainments  ;  and  j 
at  a  later  period  he  joined  the   Society  of  United  Mshmen.      He  1 
entered  warmly  into  their  views,  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  lead-  i 
ing  men  of  that  party,  and  was  soon  himself  one  of  the  most  popular  1 
persons  in  the  Union.     His  connection  with  them  led  to  the  circum-  \ 
stances  disclosed  in  the  following  memorable  trial — memorable  for  | 
being  amongst  the  first  attacks  of  Government  upon  the  society,  and 
memorable  too  for  the  splendid  ability  with  which  the  doctrines  of 
universal  freedom  were   defended  by  John  Philpot  Curran — a  name 
never  to  be  mentioned  in  Ireland,  but  with  pride  and  aftection.     The 
libel  for  which  Mr.  Rowan  was  prosecuted  will  be  found  set  out  in 
the  ex  officio  information  filed  by  the  Attorney- General.     It  was  a 
paper  addressed  by  the  United  L-ishmen  to  the  Volunteers,  and  was 
circulated  at  a  meeting  of  the  Dublin  Volunteers,  held  in  Cope-street, 
at  the  house  of  a  fencing  master.     It  is  unnecessary  to  give   any 
detail  of  the  circumstances,  which  appear  in  full  in  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses  for  the  crown.     Mr.  Rowan  was  inclined  to  employ 
none  but  barristers  who  were  members  of  the  Union,  to  defend  him ; 
but  Messrs.  Emmet  and  Butler,  conceiving  themselves  too  junior  for 
the  conduct  of  so  grave  a  case,  declined,  and  at  the  special  instance 
of  Mrs.  Rowan,  Curran  was  retained  on  this  understanding,  (to  which 
he  alludes  in  his  speech)  that  he  should  employ  his  talents  more  in 
defence  of  the  paper   than  on  any  minor  subject.*     The  trial  came 
off"  on  the  29th  January,  1794,  and  Mr.  Rowan  was  found  guilty.     A 
motion  for  a  new  trial  having  been  unsuccessfully  made,   he  was 
called   up,    and   Mr.    Justice    Boyd    pronounced    the    sentence    of 
the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  that  Mr.  Rowan  should  pay  a  fine  of 
£500,  and  be  imprisoned  for  two  yeai's,  and  that  he  should  find  secu- 
rity for  good  behaviour  for  seven  years,   himself  in  the  sum  of  two ' 
thousand  pounds,  and  two  others  in  one  thousand  each.     Mr.  Rowan 
was  committed  to  Newgate,  and  his  situation  was  rendered  as  agree- 
able as  it  could  well  be  made,  under  the  circumstances.     His  convic- 
tion having  been  calculated  upon,  it  is  told  by  the  editor  of  his  Au- 
tobiography, that  some  respectable  adherents  of  Government  antici- 

*  Autobiography  of  A.   H.  Rowan,   184. 


ARCHIBAIiD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  47 

pated,  and  sought  to  realize  the  anticipation  by  their  influence,  that 
he  would  he  exposed  to  the  degrading  punishment  of  the  pillory ;  on 
hearing  which,  Kirwan,  the  philosopher  and  chemist,  who  had  the 
entre  of  the  Castle,  went  to  the  secretary  and  asked  if  it  were  pos- 
sible that  such  a  punishment  could  have  been  contemplated?  "What! 
shew  such  a  vindictive  spirit  as  to  make  the  pillory  a  punishment  for 
a  political  offence !  Shame !  The  pillory  is  a  punislmient  for  dis- 
graceful crimes.  Rebellion  may  be  a  crime,  but  not  a  disgrace ;  nay 
more,  if  successful  it  becomes  a  virtue.  Should  you  put  Rowan  into 
the  pillory,  you  would  revolt  the  entire  order  of  gentlemen  in  Europe. 
I  know  it  is  improper  to  hold  out  a  threat  to  Government ;  but  let 
me  assure  you  the  people  of  Dublin  will  not  allow  this ;  and  weak  as 
I  am,  I  will  draw  my  sword  and  head  a  mob,  and  break  yom*  pillory 
to  atoms ;  and  let  the  blood  which  may  be  shed  be  charged  to  the 
vindictive  spirit  of  those  Avho  proposed  so  infamous  a  proceeding." 
The  secretary  assured  him  that  though  certain  persons  had  hinted 
at  such  a  punishment,  it  Avas  not  intended.  It  may  not  be  difficult 
to  divine  that  the  same  parties  who  prompted  the  extension  of  mercy 
to  a  pander  and  reprobate,  woidd  instigate  the  disgraceful  punishment 
of  a  gentleman  like  Mr.  Rowan. 

Whilst  Mr.  Rowan  was  in  Newgate,  Mr.  Jackson  arrived  from 
France  on  his  mission  of  rebellion,  and  unfoi'tunately  for  Mr.  Rowan 
obtained  an  introduction  to  his  prison.  It  was  a  strange  place  to 
contemplate  a  revolution,  but  Mr.  Rowan  was  sanguine,  and  probably 
was  excited  by  his  own  condition,  as  well  as  by  his  political  bias,  to 
lend  his  attention  to  the  temptations  held  out  by  Mr.  Jackson.  He 
involved  himself  with  that  unfortunate  person  so  much,  that  he  was 
obliged  to  consult  his  safety  by  flight,  which  he  effected  by  bribing 
his  under  jailer,  to  permit  him  to  leave  the  prison,  and  to  visit  his 
house  for  the  alleged  transaction  of  some  legal  business  ;  whilst  there 
he  got  down  by  a  back  window,  and  took  refuge  with  Mr.  Sweetman, 
a  friend  of  his,  who  resided  at  Baldoyle,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Dublin,  whence  he  escaped  in  a  small  open  boat  to  France,  passing 
through  the  English  fleet  in  a  dense  fog.  Mrs.  Rowan,  in  a  letter 
subsequently  written  to  her  husband,  somewhat  unreasonably  charges 
Wolfe  Tone,  with  having  seduced  Mr.  Rowan  into  the  treasonable 
correspondence  with  Jackson.  There  is  no  evidence  of  this  fact  in 
Rowan's  own  account  of  the  transaction  ;  the  contrary  would  rather 
appear  to  have  been  the  true  state  of  the  case,  and  if  there  was  any 
seduction  at  all  it  might  as  well  have  proceeded  from  Mr.  Rowan. 
"  It  was  also  proposed  that  some  well-informed  and  trusty  person 
should  immediately  proceed  to   France,  to  arrange  the  plan  of  pro- 


48  MEMOIR  OF 

ceeding.  Our  eyes  were  immediately  turned  to  Mr.  Tone,  &c."* 
Mr.  Rowan's  adventures  in  France  were  varied,  and  occasionally 
dangerous — at  one  time  the  companion  of  galley  slaves,  and  suspected 
of  being  an  English  spy — at  another,  living  at  the  expense  of  the 
nation — he  saw  some  of  the  strangest  scenes  of  the  revolution,  being 
a  resident  in  that  country  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  Robespierre 
and  the  Terrorists.  He  did  not  remain  many  months  in  France,  and 
after  considerable  difficulties,  arrived  in  Philadelphia,  amongst  the 
first  of  the  United  Irishmen  who  sought  and  received  the  hospitality 
and  protection  of  America. 

He  remained  for  five  years  in  America,  separated  from  his  wife 
and  children,  discontented  and  speculating.  He  was  a  farmer,  and  a 
calico  manufacturer,  and  succeeded  in  neither  pursuit.  Essentially 
aristocratic,  he  disliked  the  manners  of  the  people,  though  he  made 
some  valuable  friends  amongst  them,  and  we  accordingly  find  his 
letters  filled  with  constant  expressions  of  discontent,  if  not  despair. 
By  considerable  influence  he  was  permitted  to  return  to  Eui'ope,  and 
had  the  happiness  of  a  reunion  with  his  faithful  and  noble-minded 
wife,  with  whom,  and  with  his  family,  he  settled  at  Altona,  where  he 
remained  from  1800  to  1803. 

Mr.  Rowan  was,  after  some  time,  admitted  to  the  full  enjoyment 
of  the  King's  pardon,  and  returned  to  settle  finally  in  Ireland,  in 
1806,  and  on  the  death  of  his  father  took  up  his  residence  ^in  Killy- 
leagh  Castle,  his  patrimonial  estate,  in  the  county  of  Down.  From 
this  period,  his  career  was  one  of  easy  domestic  enjoyment.  He 
spent  his  large  fortune  in  doing  good  to  a  grateful  tenantry — 
reducing  to  practice  the  doctrines  he  had  taught  and  sufiered  for,  and 
living  to  see  the  triumph  of  the  political  opinions  for  which  he  had 
been  driven  from  his  country,  and  for  which  his  friends  had  sacri- 
ficed their  lives.  He  made  no  compromise  with  power,  nor  proved 
his  gratitude  by  apostasy.  Consistently  the  friend  of  his  Catholic 
countrymen,  he  became  a  member  of  the  Association,  where  his 
name  was  received  with  the  most  grateful  enthusiasm.  Attacked  in 
Parliament  by  Mr.  Peel  and  Mr.  Dawson  as  an  "  attainted  traitor," 
he  had  the  spirit,  in  his  74th  year,  to  seek  for  reparation  at  the  hands 
of  the  latter  gentleman,  and  the  good  fortune  to  obtain  a  disclaimer 
of  intentional  offence.* 

He  died  on  the  1st  November,  1834,  in  his  84th  year,  his  attached 
wife  having  preceded  him  to  the  grave  only  a  few  months  before. 
"  He  had,"  says  the  Editor  of  his  Autobiography,  "  a  full  and  com- 
manding person,  in  which  agility,  strength,  and  grace  were  combined. 
His  features  were  expressive  and  strongly  marked — in  his  younger 

*  Autobiography  of  A.  H.  Rowan.  211. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  49 

days  he  was  universally  regarded  as  handsome,  and  so  attractive  of 
admiration  that  the  eyes  of  all  were  turned  upon  him  whenever  he 
came  into  public ;  a  circumstance  which  must  have  greatly  tended  to 
foster  his  love  of  popularity  and  stimulate  him  to  the  achievement  of 
those  feats  for  which  he  became  so  distinguished  in  his  younger  days. 
In  Rowan's  character  were  blended  many  of  the  best  virtues,  with  a 
due  share  of  human  imperfections.  The  great  tendency  of  his 
mental  constitution  was  a  love  of  popularity — nimium  gaudens  popu- 
larihus  auris — and  this  fostered  that  taste  for  politics  which  had 
been  early  implanted  in  his  mind,  and  which  "  grew  with  his  growth, 
and  strengthened  with  his  strength."  In  private  life,  he  was  social 
and  domestic,  an  early  riser,  temperate  in  his  habits,  and  when  not 
provoked  to  anger,  bland,  courteous,  amiable,  and  capable  of  winning 
and  retaining  the  most  devoted  friendship,  as  he  experienced  in  no 
ordinary  degree  in  many  trying  circumstances.  As  a  husband  he 
was  constant,  fond,  and  studious  of  meriting  the  esteem  of  his  wife, 
by  whose  judgment  he  often  suffered  himself  to  be  directed,  and  of 
whose  matronly  virtues  he  always  expressed  the  highest  appreciation. 
No  father  could  be  more  affectionate,  none  more  anxious  for  the  best 
interests  of  his  children."! 

Such  was  the  first  victim  of  distinction  selected  by  the  Anglo-Irish 
Government,  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  policy  with  which  this  country  was 
ruled — as  a  sacrifice  to  perpetuate  a  system  which  has  since  been 
destroyed  by  the  hands  of  British  statesmen  themselves — but  one  whose 
evil  results  are  yet  felt  in  the  distracted  state  of  Ireland,  and  in  the 
disunion,  poverty,  and  crimes  of  her  children. 

*  Autobiography,  414.  \  Autobiography,  435. 


KING'S    BENCH. 


THE  FOLLOWING  INFORMATION 


WAS    FIJLED 


BY  HIS  MAJESTY'S  ATTORNEY  GENEEAL, 

EX    OFFICIO, 


AGAINST 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN,  ESQ. 


Of  Trinity  Term  in  the  thirty  third  year  of  the  reign  of  our  sove- 
reign Lord  George  the  Third,  now  King  of  Great  Britain,  and 
soforth,  and  in  the  year  of  oui'  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  ninety-three. 
County  of  the  Citij  of  \  Be  it  remembered  that  the  Right  Honour- 
Dublin,  to  wit.  /  able  Arthur  Wolfe,  Attorney  General  of  our 
present  Sovereign  Lord  the  King,  who  for  our  said  Lord  the  King  pro- 
secutes in  his  behalf,  in  his  proper  person  comes  into  the  Coui't  of  our 
said  Lord  the  King,  before  the  King  himself,  at  the  city  of  Dublin,  in 
the  county  of  the  said  city,  on  the  eighth  day  of  June  in  this  same 
term,  and  for  our  said  Lord  the  King  gives  the  court  here  to  understand 
and  be  informed,  that  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  of  the  city  of 
Dublin,  Esq.,  being  a  person  of  a  wicked  and  turbulent  disposition, 
and  maliciously  designing  and  intending  to  excite  and  diffuse  amongst 
the  subjects  of  this  realm  of  Ireland,  discontents,  jealousies,  and 
suspisions  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  and  his  government,  and  disaffec- 
tion and  disloyalty  to  the  person  and  government  of  our  said  Lord 
the  King,  and  to  raise  very  dangerous  seditions  and  tumults  within  this 
kingdom  of  Ireland  ;  and  to  draw  the  government  of  this  kingdom  into 
great  scandal,  infamy,  and  disgrace,  and  to  incite  the  subjects  of  our 
Lord  the  King  to  attempt,  by  force  and  violence,  and  with  ju'ms,  to 
make  alterations  in  the  government,  state,  and  constitution  of  this 
kingdom,  and  to  incite  his  Majesty's  said  subjects  to  tumult  and  anar- 
chy, and  to  overturn  the  established  constitution  of  this  kingdom,  and 
to  overawe  and  intimidate  the  legislature  of  this  kingdom,  by  an 
armed  force,  on  the  sixteenth  day  of  December,  in  the  thirty-third 
year  of  the  reign  of  our  said  present  Sovereign  Lord  George  the 
Third,  by  the  grace  of  God  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Ireland, 


52  TRIAL    OF 

King,  defender  of  the  faitli,  and  soforth,  with  force  and  arms,  at  Dublin, 
aforesaid,  to  wit,  in  the  parish  and  ward  of  St.  Michael  the  Arch- 
angel, and  in  the  county  of  the  said  city,  wickedly,  maliciously,  and 
seditiously,  did  publish,  and  cause  and  procure  to  be  published,  a 
certain  false,  wicked,  malicious,  scandalous,  and  seditious  libel,  of  and 
concerning  the  government,  state,  and  constitution  of  this  kingdom, 
according  to  the  tenor  and  effect  following,  that  is  to  say, — "  The 
Society  of  United  Irishmen  at  Dublin,  to  the  Volunteers  of  Ireland. 
William  Drennan,  chairman,  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  secretaiy. 
Citizen  soldiers,  you  first  took  up  arms  to  protect  your  country  from 
foreign  enemies  and  from  domestic  disturbance  ;  for  the  same  purposes 
it  now  becomes  necessary  that  you  should  resume  them ;  and  a  pro- 
clamation has  been  issued  in  England  for  embodying  the  militia,  and 
a  proclamation  has  been  issued  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and  Council 
in  Ireland,  [meaning  a  proclamation  which  issued  under  the  great  seal 
of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland,  the  eighth  day  of  December,  one  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  ninety-two,]  for  repressing  all  seditious  associa- 
tions ;  in  consequence  of  both  these  proclamations  it  is  reasonable  to 
apprehend  danger  from  abroad  and  danger  at  home,  for  whence  but 
from  apprehended  danger  are  these  menacing  preparations  for  war 
drawn  through  the  streets  of  this  capital  [meaning  the  city  of  Dublin] 
or  whence  if  not  to  create  that  internal  commotion  which  was  not 
found,  to  shake  that  credit  which  was  not  affected,  to  blast  that  Volun- 
teer honour  which  was  lutherto  inviolate,  are  those  terrible  sugges- 
tions and  rumours  and  whispers  that  meet  us  at  every  corner,  and  agi- 
tate at  least  our  old  men,  our  women,  and  children  ;  whatever  be  the 
motive,  or  from  whatever  quarter  it  arises,  alarm  has  arisen  ;  and  you 
Volunteers  of  Ireland  are  therefore  summoned  to  arms  at  the  instance 
of  government,  as  well  as  by  the  responsibility  attached  to  your 
character,  and  the  permanent  obligations  of  your  institution.  We 
will  not  at  this  day  condescend  to  quote  authorities  for  the  right 
of  having  and  of  using  arms,  but  we  will  cry  aloud,  even  amidst  the 
storm  raised  by  the  witchcraft  of  a  proclamation,  tliat  to  your  forma- 
tion was  owing  the  peace  and  protection  of  this  island,  to  your 
relaxation  has  been  owing  its  relapse  into  impotence  and  insignificance, 
to  your  renovation  must  be  owing  its  futui'e  freedom  and  its  present 
tranquillity ;  you  are  therefore  summoned  to  arms,  in  order  to  preserve 
your  country  in  that  guarded  quiet  which  may  secure  it  from 
external  hostility,  and  to  maintain  that  internal  regimen  throughout 
the  land,  which,  superseding  a  notorious  police  or  a  suspected  militia, 
may  preserve  the  blessings  of  peace  by  a  vigilant  preparation  for  war. 
Citizen  soldiers,  to  arms,  take  up  the  sliield  of  freedom  and  the  pledges 
of  peace — peace,  the  motive  and  end  of  your  virtuous  institution — war, 
an  occasional  duty,  ought  never  to  be  made  an  occupation  ;  every  man 
should  become  a  soldier  in  the  defence  of  his  rights ;  no  man  ought 
to  continue  a  soldier  for  offending  the  rights  of  others  ;  the  sacrifice  of 
life  in  the  service  of  our  country  is  a  duty  much  too  lionourable  to  be 
intrusted  to  mercenaries,  and  at  this  time,  Avhen  your  country  has,  by 
publK!  authority,  been  declared  in  danger,  we  conjure  you  by  your 
interest,  your  duty,  and  your  glory,  to  stand  to  your  arms,  and  in  spite 
of  a  police,  in  spite  of  a  fencible  militia,  in  virtue  of  two  proclamations, 
to  maintain  good  order  in  your  vicinage,  and  tranquillity  in  Ireland. 


ARCHIBALD    HAMILTON    ROWAN.  53 

It  is  only  by  the  military  array  of  men  in  whom  they  confiile,  whom 
they  have  been  accustomed  to  revere  as  the  guardians  of  domestic 
peace,  the  protectors  of  their  liberties  and  theii'  lives,  that  the  present 
agitation  of  the  people  can  be  stilled,  that  tumult  and  licentiousness 
can  bo  repressed,  obedience  secured  to  existing  law,  and  a  calm 
confidence  diffused  through  the  public  mind  in  the  speedy  resurrection 
of  a  free  constitution,  [meaning  that  the  people  of  Ireland  had  not  at 
the  time  of  the  publishing  aforesaid  a  free  constitution]  of  liberty  and 
of  equality,  words  which  we  use  for  an  opportunity  of  repelling 
calumny,  and  of  saying,  that  by  liberty  w^e  never  understood  unlimited 
freedom,  nor  by  equality  the  levelling  of  property,  or  the  destruction 
of  subordination ;  this  is  a  calumny  invented  by  that  faction,  or  that 
gang,  wliich  misrepresents  the  King  to  the  people,  and  the  people  to  the 
King,  traduces  one  half  of  the  nation  to  cajole  the  other,  and  by  keeping 
up  distrust  and  division,  wishes  to  continue  the  proud  arbitrators  of  the 
fortune  and  fate  of  Ireland ;  liberty  is  the  exercise  of  all  our  righi  s, 
natural  and  political,  secured  to  us  and  our  posterity  by  a  real  repre- 
sentation of  the  people  ;  and  equality  is  the  extension  of  the  constituent 
to  the  fullest  dimensions  of  the  constitution,  of  the  elective  franchise 
to  the  whole  body  of  the  people,  to  the  end  that  government,  which  is 
collective  power,  may  be  guided  by  collective  will,  and  that  legislation 
maj^  originate  from  public  reason,  keep  pace  with  public  improvement, 
and  terminate  in  public  happiness.  K  our  constitution  be  imperfect, 
nothing  but  a  reform  in  representation  will  rectify  its  abuses  ;  if  it  be 
perfect,  nothing  but  the  same  reform  will  perpetuate  its  blessings. 
We  now  address  you  as  citizens,  for  to  be  citizens  you  became  soldiers, 
nor  can  we  help  wishing  that  all  soldiers  partaking  the  passions  and 
interest  of  the  people  would  remember,  that  they  w^ere  once  citizens, 
that  seduction  made  them  soldiers,  but  nature  made  them  men.  We 
address  you  without  any  authority  save  that  of  reason,  and  if  we 
obtain  the  coincidence  of  public  opinion,  it  is  neither  by  force  nor 
stratagem,  for  we  have  no  power  to  terrify,  no  artifice  to  cajole,  no 
fund  to  seduce  ;  here  we  sit  without  mace  or  beadle,  neither  a  mystery 
nor  a  craft,  nor  a  corporation;  in  four  words  lies  all  our  power — 
universal  emancipation  and  representative  legislature — ^yet  we  are 
confident  that  on  the  pivot  of  this  principle,  a  convention,  still  less  a 
society,  still  less  a  single  man,  wnll  be  able  first  to  move  and  then  to 
raise  the  world ;  we  therefore  wish  for  Catholic  emancipation  without 
any  modification,  but  still  we  consider  this  necessary  enfranchisement 
as  merely  the  portal  to  the  temple  of  national  freedom ;  wide  as  this 
entrance  is,  wide  enough  to  admit  thi'ee  millions,  it  is  narrow  when 
compared  to  the  capacity  and  comprehension  of  our  beloved  principle, 
which  takes  in  every  individual  of  the  Irish  nation,  casts  an  equal  eye 
over  the  whole  island,  embraces  all  that  think,  and  feels  for  all  that 
suffer ;  the  Catholic  cause  is  subordinate  to  our  cause,  and  included 
in  it ;  for,  as  United  Irishmen,  we  adhere  to  no  sect,  but  to  society — 
to  no  cause,  but  Christianity — to  no  party,  but  the  whole  people.  In 
the  sincerity  of  our  souls  do  we  desire  Catholic  emancipation :  but 
were  it  obtained  to-morrow,  to-morrow  would  we  go  on  as  we  do 
to-day,  in  the  pursuit  of  that  reform,  which  w^ould  still  be  wanting 
to  ratify  their  liberties  as  well  as  our  own.  For  both  these  purposes 
it  appears  necessary  that  pix)vincial  conventions  should  assemble  pre- 


54  THIAL    OF 

paratory  to  the  convention  of  the  Protestant  people  ;  the  delegates  of 
the  Catholic  body  are  not  jvistified  in  communicating  with  individuals 
or  even  bodies  of  inferior  authority,  and  therefore  an  assembly  of  a 
similar  nature  and  organisation  is  necessary  to  establish  an  intercourse 
of  sentiments,  an  uniformity  of  conduct,  an  united  cause  and  an  united 
nation ;  if  a  convention  on  the  one  part  does  not  soon  follow,  and  is 
not  soon  connected  with  that  on  the  other,  the  common  cause  will  split 
into  the  partial  interest,  the  people  will  relapse  into  inattention   and 
inertness,  the  union  of  affection  and  exertion  will  dissolve,  and  too  pro- 
bably   some   local  insurrections,  instigated  by  the  malignity  of  our 
common  enemy,  may  commit  the  character  and  risk  the  tranquillity  of 
the  island,  which  can  be, obviated  only  by  the  influence  of  an  assembly 
arising  from,  assimilated  with  the  people,  and  whose  spirit  may  be, 
as  it  were,  knit  with  the  soul  of  the  nation.     Unless  the  sense  of  the 
Protestant  people    be  on  their  part  as  fairly  collected  and  as  judi- 
ciously directecl,  unless  individual  exertion  consolidates  into  collective 
strength,  unless  the  parts  unite  into  one  mass ;  we  may  perhaps  serve 
some  person  or  some  party  for  a  little,  but  the  public  not  at  all ;  the 
nation    is   neither  insolent,   nor    rebellious,    nor  seditious ;  while    it 
knows  its  rights,  it  is  unwilling  to  manifest  its  powers  ;  it  would  rather 
supplicate  administration  to  anticipate  revolution  by  well-timed  reform, 
and  to   save  their  countiy  in   mercy  to  themselves.     Tlie  fifteenth 
of  February  approaches,  a  day  ever  memorable  in  the  annals  of  this 
country  as  the  birth-day  of  new  Ireland ;  let  parochial  meetings  be  held 
as  soon  as  possible,  let  each  parish  return  delegates,  let  the  sense  of  Ulster 
be  again  declared  from  Dungannon,  on  a  day  auspicious  to  iniion,  peace 
and  freedom,  and  the  spirit  of  the  North  will  again  become  the  spirit  of 
the  nation.     The  civil  assembly  ought  to  claim  the  attendance  of  the 
military  associations,  and  we  have  addressed  you,  citizen  soldiers,  on 
this  subject  from  the  belief,   that  your  body  uniting  conviction  with 
zeal,    and  zeal  with  activity,   may  have  much  influence   over  your 
countrymen,  your  relations,   and  friends.     We  offer  only  a  general 
outline  to  the  public,  and  meaning  to  address  Ireland,  presume  not  at 
present  to  fill  up  the  plan,   or  pre-occupy  the  mode  of  its  execution. 
We  have  thought  it  our  duty  to  speak.     Answer  us  by  actions  ;  you 
have  taken  time  for  consideration  ;  fourteen   long  years   are   elapsed 
since  the  rise  of  your  associations  ;  and  in  1782  did  you  imagine  that 
in  1792  this   nation  would  still   remain  unrepresented?     How  many 
nations,  in  this  interval,  have  gotten  the  start  of  Ireland  ?  How  many 
of  yovu'  countrymen  have  sunk  into  the  grave  ?"     In  contempt  of  our 
said  Lord  the  King,  in  open   violation  of  the  laws  of  this  kingdom, 
to  the  evil  and  pernicious    example    of  all  others  in  the   like  case 
offending,  and  against  the  peace  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  his  crown 
and   dignity.     WHEREUPON  the   said  Attorney  General  of   our 
said  Lord  the  King,  who  for  our  said  Lord  the  King  in  this  behalf 
prosecutes,  prays  the  consideration  of  the  court  here  in  the  premises, 
and  due  ]>rocess  of  law  maybe  awarded  against  him  the  said  Archibald 
HainiltoTi  Rowan  in  this  behalf,  to  make  him  answer  to  our  said  Lord 
the  King  touching  and  concerning  the  premises  aforesaid. 

ARTHIUR  WOLFE. 
THOMAS  KEMMIS,  Attorney. 

Received  the  8th  of  June  1793. 
(Copy.) 


AKCHIBALD    HAMILTON    ROWAN.  55 

To  this  information  Mr.  Rowan  appeared,  by  Matthew  Dowling, 
gent,  his  attorney,  and  2:)leaded  the  general  issue — Not  Guihy — and 
the  court  having  appointed  Wednesday  the  29th  day  of  January, 
1794,  for  tlie  trial  of  the  said  issue,  the  undernamed  persons  were 
sworn  upon  the  jury: 

Sir  F.  Hutchinson,  Bart.  John  Read, 

Frederick  Trench,  Esq.  Robert  Lea, 

William  Duke  Moore,  Richard  Fox, 

Humphry  Minchin,  Christopher  Harrison, 

Richard  Manders,  George  Perrin, 

George  Palmer,  Thomas  Sherrard. 

Upon  calling  over  the  jury,  John  Read  was  objected  to,  as  holding 
a  place  under  the  crown,*  but  the  Attorney  General  insisting  upon  the 
illegality  of  the  objection,  and  observing  that  it  went  against  all  that 
was  honourable  and  respectable  in  the  land,  it  was  overruled  by  the 
court.  Richard  Fox,  when  called  to  the  book,  was  interrogated 
whether  he  had  ever  given  an  opinion  upon  the  subject  then  to  be 
tried,  to  which  he  answered,  that  he  did  not  know  what  the  subject 
of  the  trial  was.  The  same  question  was  put  to  Thomas  Sherrai'd, 
who  returned  a  similar  answer. 

Joshua  Dixon,  who  had  been  sworn  upon  the  jury,  without  any 
objection,  here  stated,  that  he  had  given  an  opinion  upon  the  subject, 
upon  which  Mr.  Attorney  General  consented  that  he  should  be  with- 
drawn, but  protested  against  the  right  of  the  defendant's  counsel  to 
examine  the  jurors  as  they  had  done.  If  they  had  any  objection, 
they  ought  to  make  their  challenge,  and  support  it  by  evidence. 

The  counsel  for  the  defendant  answered,  that  they  would  not 
acquiesce  in  the  consent  of  the  Attorney  General  to  withdraw  the 
juror,  if  their  examination  was  to  be  objected  to,  and  intimated  that 
the  juror  ought  to  be  withdraAvn  upon  the  desire  of  the  Attorney 
General,  without  any  consent  whatever  being  entered  into. 

Hereupon  the  Attorney  General  desired  that  the  juror  might  be 
withdi'awn. 

Counsel  for  the  Prosecution.  Counsel  for  the  Defendant. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  Mr.  Curran, 

Prime  Serjeant,  Mr.  Recorder, 

Solicitor  General,  Mr.  Fletcher. 

Mr.  Frankland, 

Mr.  RuxTON, 

Agent — Mr.  Kemmis.  Agent — Mr.  Dowling. 

Mr.  Ruxton  opened  the  pleadings. 

Mr.  Attorney  General — My  Lord  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury, 
In  this  case,  between  the  King  and  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan, 
Esq.,  it  is  my  duty  to  prosecute  on  behalf  of  the  crown.  The  traverser 
in  this  case,  gentlemen,  stands  accused  upon  an  information  filed 
ex  officio,  by  the  King's  Attorney  General,  for  publishing  a  seditious 
libel.  It  is  my  duty  to  lay  the  facts  of  this  case  before  you — it  will 
be  the  duty  of  another  of  his  majesty's  servants  to  observe  upon 
the  evidence.    I  shall  state  the  nature  of  the  charge  and  the  questions 

*  Co.  Litt.  156  a ;  2  Hale.  His.  PI.  c.  271  ;  Hawkins  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  ch. 
4:?,  sections  32,  33. 


56  TRIAL    OF 

you  are  to  try ;  I  will  then  state  such  circumstances  as  are  necessary 
to  be  taken  into  your  consideration,  for  the  purpose  of  understanding 
and   expounding   that    paper   which   the  information    charges  to   be 
a   malicious,    and   seditious   libel.       The   information    charges,   that 
Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,   maliciously  designing  and  intending  to 
excite  and  diffuse  amongst  the  subjects  of  this  realm,  discontents,  dis- 
aifection  and  disloyalty  to  the  king  and  government,  and  to  raise  very 
dangerous   seditions   and  tumults,  and  to  draw  the  government  into 
scandal,   infamy  and  disgrace,  and  to  incite  the  subjects  to  attempt, 
by  force  and  with  arms,  to  make  alterations  in  the  government,  and 
to  excite  the   subjects  to   anarchy,   to  overturn  the  constitution  and 
overawe  the  legislature  of  the  kingdom,  did  publish  the  libel  set  forth 
in  the   infoi'mation.     In  this  case,  therefore,  it  will  be  for  you,  gen- 
tlemen, upon   the  evidence  which  shall  be  laid  before  you,  to  deter- 
mine, whether  the  traverser  has  been  the  publisher  of  that  paper  or 
not.     I  shall,  in  the  course  of  what  I  am  to  offer  to  the  court  and  to 
you,  read  the  very  libel  itself,  and  make  such  observations  as  occur  to 
me  to  be  proper  in  the  present  state  of  the  business.     Previous,  how- 
ever, to  my  doing  so,  I  will  take  the  liberty,  gentlemen,  of  stating  to 
you   some  facts   and  circumstances  that  appear  to  me  deserving  of 
attention  in  the  investigation  of  the  matter  before  you  ;  and  in  doing 
so,  I  shall  carefully  avoid  mentioning  many  facts  and  circumstances 
which  those  disgraceful  times  have  furnished,  that  might  lead  your 
verdict  one  way  or  the   other.     I  shall  not  attempt  to  excite  your 
passions.     I  am  happy   at  length  that  this  case  has  come  before  an 
impartial  jury.     It  has  long  been  the  desire  of  every  good  man  that 
this  matter  should  come  to  trial  before  that  constitutional  tribunal 
who  stand  arbiters  in  this  case,   to  protect  the  accused  against  the 
power  of  the  crown  ;  not  resembling  any  of  those  prosecutions  which 
the  turbulence  of  former  times  have  excited,   you  are  assembled  with 
that  coolness  which  tlie  solemnity  of  the  occasion  requires,  to  deter- 
mine whether  Mr.  Rowan  be  guilty,  criminally,  of  the  offence  charged 
against  him.     Take   the  libel  into  your  consideration,  and  determine, 
as  tlie  law  now  allows  you  to  do,  whether  it  be  a  libellous  publication, 
tending  to  excite  sedition,  to  overawe  the  government ;  or  tending  to 
produce  any  of  the  effects  imputed  to  it.     I  shall  now  proceed  to  state 
a  few  facts  which   I   said  it  was  my  duty  to  do.     I  shall  call  your 
attention  to  the  history  of  the  times   about  which  this  libel  was  pub- 
lished : — No  man,   let  his  situation  be  what  it  may,  can  be  too  cau- 
tious in   uttering  what  ought  not  to  be  said,  which  might  influence 
your  judgment  upon   your  oaths ;  and  in  that  office  which  I  hold, 
which  is  the  office  of  the  people,  as  well  as  of  the  crown,  it  is  more 
than  a  common  duty  to  take  care,  not  to  step  beyond  that  line  which 
leads  to  common  justice.     I  am  warranted  by  the  authority  of  a  court 
of  justice,   by  the   proceedings  of  the  King's  Bench  in  England  ;  by 
the  opinion  of  a  Judge  of  as  much   spirit  and  independence  as  any 
man,  I  allude  to  the  case  of  the   printer  of  the  Morning  Chronicle, 
in  which  Lord  Kenyon  informs  the  jury,  that  it  is  necessary,  in  cases 
of  this  kind,  to  attend  to  the  circumstances  and  history  of  the  times 
in  which  the  libel  was  published.*     They  tend  to  explain  the  motiA^s 

*  Howell.  St.  Trials,  vol.  22,  p.  1017. 


AECHIBALD    HAMILTON    ROWAN.  57 

which  induced  tlie  publication,  and  the  meaning  of  the  libel  itself. 
He  says  it  is  impossible  for  the  court,  or  a  jury,  to  shut  their  ears 
against  the  history  of  the  times.  Besides  that  common  principle,  I 
am  the  moi'e  justifiable  in  what  I  shall  state,  because  the  libel  charged 
comes  from  that  body  of  men,  who  have  constituted  themselves  by  the 
name  of  "  The  Society  of  United  Irishmen  in  Dublin."  From  the 
time  of  the  restoration  of  our  constitution — from  the  year  1784  to 
the  year  1792 — this  country  advanced  in  prospei'ity,  with  a  regular 
progress  and  gradation.  The  agriculture,  commerce  and  police  im- 
proved ;  the  civilization  of  the  country  proceeded  uniformly  from 
year  to  year  ;  the  commonalty  began  to  enjoy  blessings  they  had  been 
strangers  to — ships  crowded  in  our  harbours — commerce  occupied 
our  ports — culture  in  our  fields,  and  peace  and  happiness  every  where 
prevailed.  The  French  revolution  took  place,  when  there  were  found 
many  men,  who  from  situation,  from  circumstances,  from  ambition, 
were  desirous  of  commotion.  Clubs  were  formed  in  the  metropolis 
with  the  avowed  intention  of  improving  the  constitution,  for  they 
must  assume  some  pretext,  but  with  a  view,  I  fear,  under  colour  of 
that,  to  overturn  it.  They  subsisted  here  in  this  tovf  n  under  different 
names,  till  at  length  in  1791?  they  formed  themselves  into  a  club, 
called  the  Society  of  United  Irishmen,  consisting  at  first  of  a  small 
number,  composed  of  various  classes  of  men,  certainly  some  of  them 
of  the  learned  professions  ; — some  of  the  lowest  members  in  the  com- 
munity. In  1791  they  continued  to  pour  upon  the  public  daily 
publications,  setting  forth  the  distresses  of  the  people,  teaching  them 
to  be  discontented  with  their  situation  and  the  government  of  the 
covmtry.  Things  thus  proceeded,  down  to  the  latter  end  of  the  year 
1792.  In  the  latter  end  of  autumn,  1792,  the  allied  armies  I'etired 
from  the  kingdom  of  France  :  the  convention  of  that  kingdom  began 
to  hold  a  high  language,  and  to  talk  of  ovei'setting  the  government 
of  kings.  An  attack  was  made  upon  regal  authority,  a  spirit  was 
stirred  among  those  desirous  of  such  schemes — it  seemed  to  inspire 
them.  There  was  a  talk  of  overturning  the  government  of  king, 
lords,  and  commons — success  at  the  same  time  seemed  to  crown  the 
arms  of  the  French  ;  they  advanced  beyond  their  own  territory,  and 
menaced  an  attack  upon  the  United  States  of  Holland.  In  this 
situation  of  things,  there  did  pervade  a  gloomy  apprehension  for  the 
safety  of  the  countr3^  Emissaries  from  France  were  spread  through- 
out Europe  ;  a  new  array  of  a  new  corps  was  made  in  Dublin  in  the 
noon  day,  decorated  with  emblems  of  sedition  ;  they  were  to  parade 
in  your  streets,  and  to  be  marshalled  in  your  squares.  The  Volun- 
teers of  Ireland,  a  name  revered  by  this  country  and  by  every  good 
man  loving  the  constitution,  that  sacred  name  was  made  a  cloak  for 
arming  a  banditti,  that  arraigned  the  constitution  and  degraded  the 
name  of  Volunteer  ;  a  National  Guard  was  formed  upon  the  plan  of 
those  in  Paris.  It  is  notorious  to  every  man  in  Ireland,  to  every 
man  in  the  British  dominions,  that  such  men  assembled  with  clothing 
of  a  peculiar  uniform,  with  emblems  of  harps  divested  of  the  royal 
crown  ;  every  thing  was  undertaken  to  spread  the  spirit  which 
animated  themselves,  and  can  any  man  forget  the  situation  of  Dublin, 
in  September,  October,  and  November,  1792,  which  caused  appre- 
hensions   in   those   who   were  well  affected  to  the  government  and 


58  TRIAL,    OF 


tranquillity  of  the  country  ?  Can  any  man  forget  the  state  of  the 
nation  at  this  period  ?  her  credit  was  shaken,  good  people  stood 
appalled ;  those  loving  peace  stood  astonished  at  the  languidness  of 
government.  At  length  that  government  came  forward  wliich  had 
never  slept,  but  had  been  proceeding  with  mildness,  determined  not 
to  go  forth  to  action,  nor  have  recourse  to  any  severer  remedies  until 
every  man  in  the  state,  who  had  a  moment's  reflection,  must  see  the 
necessity  of  the  exertion.  The  troops  are  summoned  to  meet,  the 
guai'ds  are  summoned  to  assemble,  and  the  first  battalion  of  National 
Guards  were  to  have  paraded,  clothed  like  Frenchmen.  The  night 
before  the  Lord  Lieutenant  had  summoned  the  council  of  the  king- 
dom ;  upon  that  night,  a  proclamation  issued,  stating  that  there  were 
intentions  to  assemble  men  in  ai'ms,  with  seditious  signs,  and  appre- 
hending danger  from  their  so  assembling  ;  it  prohibited  their  meeting. 
The  proclamation  issued  on  a  Saturday  night,  and  it  produced  that 
satisfaction  which  all  good  men  desirous  of  order  seek  to  enjoy  ;  and 
they  felt  once  more  the  pleasurable  assm'ance  that  they  had  a  govern- 
ment. Appalled  by  this  proclamation,  the  corps  did  not  meet  on  the 
8th  December,  as  it  was  intended,  though  some  few  were  seen  dressed 
in  the  National  Guard  uniform,  parading  the  streets,  with  a  mob, 
crowding  at  their  heels  ;  but  however  nothing  followed.  They  were 
seen,  and  blessed  be  God,  they  were  seen  no  more.  This  proclama- 
tion, having  for  its  object  the  preservation  of  the  peace  of  this  king- 
dom, and  the  city  in  particular,  mildly  and  coolly  cautioning 
all  men  against  those  measures,  held  out  the  consequences  that 
must  necessarily  follow,  if  they  did  not  obey.  A  proclamation 
which  received  the  applause  of  the  great  and  good,  of  the  lovers  of 
society,  and  of  every  man  not  lost  to  the  sense  of  order  and  the 
constitution ;  but  odious  to  every  man  who  was  attached  to  the 
Society  of  United  Irishmen,  and  whose  views  corresponded  with  it. 
While  I  speak  of  that  Society  let  me  not  be  understood  as  imputing 
to  every  man  who  is  in  it,  those  illegal  motives  which  I  impute  to  the 
Society  in  general :  there  might  have  been  in  it  no  doubt  many  well- 
meaning  persons  ;  for  there  were  men  picked  up  industriously  to  lend 
their  names,  in  the  streets,  in  the  lanes,  in  the  markets,  in  the  high- 
ways, and  in  the  fields.  Even  the  rich  and  industrious  grazier  was 
procured  to  lend  his  name.  To  the  got)d,  this  proclamation  gave 
pleasure  and  satisfaction,  to  the  bad  it  became  odious  and  detestable ; 
and  they  accordingly  formed  the  intention  of  bringing  the  government 
into  disgrace,  for  issuing  that  proclamation.  A  few  days  after,  I  am 
not  aware  of  the  particular  day,  but  a  few  days  after  the  issuing  the 
proclamation,  the  Society  assembled ;  the  proclamation  was  upon  the 
7th,  the  address  I  speak  of  was  published  the  16th  of  December. 
The  meeting,  therefore,  must  liave  been  between  the  7th  and  the  16th 
of  December.  The  society,  I  say,  assembled,  and  they  agreed  upon 
a  certain  address  to  the  Volunteers  of  Ireland,  and  Dr.  l)rennan  is 
there  stated  to  have  been  in  the  chair,  and  the  tra\erser.  Secre- 
tary. At  that  meeting  the  address  to  the  Volunteers  was  agreed 
upon,  which  is  the  libel  charged  against  Mr.  Rowan,  as  being- 
guilty  of  publishing  it.  Under  that  address,  this  was  to  be  done.  The 
Volunteers  of  Dublin  were  to  be  called  into  action,  and  those  papers 
were  to  be  dispersed  among  them.     For  that  piu'pose   the   several 


ARCHIBALD    MAMIJLTOIV    IIOWAN.  59 

Volunteer  corps  at  that  time  existing  in  Dublin  were  summoned  to 
assemble  in  a  house  in  Cope-street,  belonging  to  Pardon,  a  fencing- 
master,  u]ion  the  iGtli  of  December.  Accordingly  upon  that  day, 
the  several  corps  of  Volunteers  did  go  with  side  arms  to  tiiis  fencing- 
school  in  Cope-street.  The  travei'ser  was,  I  believe,  at  the  head  of 
one  of  these  corps  ;  another  very  celebrated  name  was  at  the  head 
of  another  of  them,  James  Napper  Tandy.  Who  was  at  the  head  of 
the  others  I  am  not  able  to  inform  you.  But  in  the  afternoon  of  the 
16th  of  December,  several  Volunteers,  with  uniforms  and  side  arms, 
assembled  in  the  fencing-school.  In  this  fencing-school,  gentlemen, 
there  was  a  gallery,  and  into  that  gallery  there  was  such  public  access 
tliat  what  passed  below  may  be  said  to  have  passed  in  the  face  of  the 
world ;  to  such  excess  had  those  persons  carried  their  designs  as  to 
expose  them  to  open  view,  and  if  I  state  what  is  not  true,  there  are 
one  hundred  persons  in  the  Volunteer  corps  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  out 
of  whom  a  multitude  may  be  called  to  contradict  me.  The  corps,  I 
say,  assembled  in  that  room.  There  stood  in  the  middle  of  the  room 
a  table,  and  there  was  a  vast  number  of  printed  papers  brought  in 
and  placed  on  the  table.  The  different  coi'ps  entered  into  several 
resolutions,  having  taken  into  their  wise  consideration  the  proclama- 
tion issued  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and  Council ;  the  necessity  for 
issuing  it  is  investigated,  each  of  the  corps  took  severally  into  their 
consideration  the  propriety  of  it,  and  next  day  published  their  dif- 
ferent sentiments  all  expressive  of  strong  disapprobation.  So  that  it 
is  manifest  they  were  brought  publicly  together  for  a  state  purpose, 
and  to  debate  a  state  matter.  While  these  resolutions  were  in  dis- 
cussion, Mr.  Tandy  and  Mr.  Rowan  were  seen  to  take  from  the 
table  the  printed  papers  that  lay  upon  it,  and  disperse  them  among 
the  several  Volunteers  who  stood  around  them,  and  to  hand  them 
from  the  lower  room  to  persons  in  the  gallery,  and  to  persons  not  in 
their  confidence ;  they  were  handed  up  promiscuously  to  any  man 
there,  and  to  many  persons  in  the  streets  that  evening  and  the  next 
day ;  they  were  flung  out  of  the  windows  to  the  mob  that  stood  round 
the  room.  These,  gentlemen,  are  the  circumstances  which  preceded 
the  publication  of  this  paper  by  the  traverser :  it  will  be  for  you  to 
consider  with  what  view  and  purpose  a  paper  like  this  was  composed 
and  thus  dispersed.  If  you  believe  it  was  a  candid  and  fair  discussion 
upon  constitutional  subjects,  or  upon  grievances  real  or  supposed, 
you  will  not  consider  it  as  a  libel :  but  if  from  internal  evidence  in 
the  paper  itself,  and  from  the  circumstances  attending  it,  you  believe 
it  was  no  such  thing,  but  that  it  was  published  Avith  a  view  to  raise 
discontents  against  the  government — to  disturb  the  people — to  overawe 
the  parliament,  or  any  branch  of  the  state,  then  you  must  find  him 
guilty.  You,  gentlemen,  will  take  the  paper  into  your  room  with  you  ; 
consider  it  cooly,  and  discharge  from  your  minds,  all  you  have 
heard  abroad  respecting  it,  and  determine  whether  it  be  possible 
to  give  any  other  construction  than  that  which  the  information  has 
ascribed  to  it.  I  will  submit  to  you,  gentlemen — to  you  alone  I 
desire  to  submit  the  cool  examination  of  that  paper,  upon  the  paper 
itself.  It  is  impossible  with  all  the  ingenuity  (and  he  who  comes  after 
me  on  the  other  side  has  as  much  ingenuity  as  any  man)  to  shew  that 
it  was  not  written  for  the  purpose  of  overawing  the  legislature,  or  to 


60  TRIAL    OF 

?«ccount  for  it  in  any  other  way.     This  brings  me  now  to  the  libel  itself, 
and  as  it  has  not  been  read  to  you  in  this  court,  for  in  open  court  I  wish 
it  to  be  read,  I  will  read  it,  and  make  such  observations  as  I  think 
necessary.     "  The    Society  of  United    Irishmen,   at   Dublin,   to  the 
Volunteers    of   Ireland,      William    Drennan,    Chairman,    Archibald 
Hamilton  Rowan,  Secretary.    Citizen  Soldiers."    A  language,  gentle- 
men, which  excites   ideas  in  one's  mind  that  cannot  be   described. 
You   will  perceive  in   this  publication   the  frippery  of  the   French 
language  as  now  used  ;  and  those  ideas  will  be  excited,  which  must  fill 
the  mind  of  every  man  who  regards  religion,  society,  or  peace,  with 
terror  and  alarm.     "  Citizen  Soldiers,  you  first  took  up  arms  to  protect 
your  country  from  foreign  enemies,  and,  from  domestic  disturbance. 
For  the  same  purpose,   it  now  becomes   necessary,  that  you  should 
resume  them."     The  Society  of  United  Irishmen,  who  say  they  are  no 
corporation,  yet  as  if  they  were  a  corporation,  presume  to  tell  the 
armed  people  of  Ireland  when  it  is  they  should  assemble :  Is  that  or 
is  it  not  tending  to  sedition  ?     Is  it  or  is  it  not  assuming  a  power  to 
overawe  the  parliament  and  overturn  the  government  itself ?     "A 
proclamation  has  been  issued  in  England  for  embodying  the  militia,  and 
a  proclamation  has  been  issued  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and  Council 
in  Ireland,  for  repressing  all  seditious  associations.     In  consequence  of 
both  these  proclamations,  it  is  reasonable  to  apprehend  danger  from 
abroad,  and  danger  at  home.     From  whence  but  from  apprehended 
danger,  are  those  menacing  preparations  for  war  drawn  through  the 
streets  of  this  capital,"  (alluding  to  some  cannon  which  were  drawn 
through  the  streets    a  few  days   before  to  protect  the    inhabitants 
against  the  dangers  apprehended,)  "  or  whence  if  not  to  create  that 
internal  commotion  Avhich  was  not  found,  to  shake  that  credit  which 
was  not  affected,  to  blast  that  Volunteer  honour  which  was  hitherto 
inviolate."     What !  did  the  proclamation,  forbidding  seditious  asso- 
ciations and  assemblies  of  men,  with  banners  expressive  of  disloyalty, 
violate  the  honour  of  that  glorious  institution,  which  was  raised  to 
protect  and  support  the  constitution,   that  those  seditious  men  calling 
themselves  Volunteers  were  assembled  to  destroy,  and  this  Society  of 
United  Irishmen  did  wish  to  overturn  ?     That  is  what  is  stated  in 
this,  for  so  I  will  call  it  until  you  teach  me  another  language,  this 
abominable  seditious  libel.    "  Whence  are  those  terrible  suggestions  and 
rumours   and  whispers,  that  meet  us  at  every  corner  and  agitate  at 
least  our  old  men,  our  women  and  children  ?     Whatever  be  the  motive, 
or  from    whatever   quarter   it    arises,    alarm    has    arisen ;  and  you, 
VOLUNTEERS  OF  IRELAND,  are  therefore  summoned  to  arms 
at  the  instance  of  government,  as  well  as  by  the  responsibility  attached 
to  your  character,  and  the  permanent  obligations  of  your  institution." 
First  you  will  observe  gentlemen,  they  make  the  ancient  Volunteers 
those  whose  honor  was  wounded  and  blasted  by  the  proclamation,  and 
then   they  tell  them   that  the  proclamation  has  summoned  them  to 
assemble  in  arms — strange  inconsistency  of  rhapsody  !     With  regard 
to  sucli  parts  as  are  unintelligible,  for  there  are  many  parts  the  most 
bombastical  and  absurd  that  ever  appeared  in  any  publication,  I  pass 
them  over,  it  is  not  my  wish  to  criticise  them.     "  We  will   not   at 
this  day,  condescend  to  quote  authorities  for  the  right  of  having  and 
of  using  arms."     Who  had  called  in  question  the  right  of  the  i^eople 


ARCHIBALD    HAMILTON    HOWAN.  61 

to  carry  anns  ?  Is  it  because  the  goverament  said,  that  arms  should 
not  be  used  to  the  destruction  or  danger  of  the  people,  that,  therefore, 
the  legality  of  carrying  them  is  questioned  ?  "  But  we  will  cry  aloud, 
even  amidst  the  storm  raised  by  the  Avitchcraft  of  a  proclamation."  Is 
tliat  a  direct  charge  against  government,  that  they  laid  a  scheme  to 
raise  a  storm  ?  "  That  to  your  formation  was  owing  the  peace  and 
protection  of  this  island,  to  your  relaxation  has  been  owing  its  relapse 
into  impotence  and  insignificance,  to  your  renovation  must  be  owing 
its  future  freedom,  and  its  present  tranquillity.  You  are,  therefore, 
summoned  to  arms,  in  order  to  preserve  your  country  in  that  guarded 
(juiet,  which  may  secure  it  from  external  hostility,  and  to  maintain 
that  internal  regimen  throughout  the  land,  which  superseding  a 
notorious  police  or  a  suspected  militia,  may  preserve  the  blessings  of 
peace,  by  a  vigilant  preparation  for  war."  Now,  gentlemen,  here  you 
see  a  reflection  cast :  if  they  meant  to  state  a  grievance,  or  to  reason 
upon  a  point  of  constitution  why  not  do  it  ? — they  had  a  right. 
But  does  that  mark  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the  publication  ? 
Why  reflect  upon  legal  establishments,  and  why  endeavour  to  cry 
down  a  body  of  men,  Avhich  it  was  well  known  to  be  in  the  con- 
templation of  government  to  raise?  They  endeavoured  to  i-ender 
odious  the  militia  before  it  was  created,  because  they  foresaw  it  would 
protect  the  state,  against  the  schemes  which  they  had  formed.  They 
next  inform  these  men,  that  they  are  not  embodied  as  before  stated, 
for  the  protection  of  their  country,  but  to  resist  a  body  of  men  about 
to  be  constituted  by  government  for  the  protection  and  safety  of  the 
state,  but  whom  they  are  pleased  to  deem  suspicious ;  is  not  this  to 
raise  disturbance  ?  is  not  this  to  excite  tumult  ?  "  Citizen  soldiers,  to 
arms!  Take  up  the  shield  of  freedom  and  the  pledges  of  peace — 
peace  the  motive  and  end,  of  your  virtuous  institution.  War  an 
occasional  duty,  ought  never  to  be  made  an  occupation.  Every  man 
should  become  a  soldier,  in  the  defence  of  his  rights;  no  man  ought 
to  continue  a  soldier,  for  oifending  the  rights  of  others.  The  sacrifice 
of  life  in  the  service  of  our  country,  is  a  duty  much  too  honourable  to 
be  entrusted  to  mercenaries,  and  at  this  time,  when  your  country  has 
by  public  authority  been  declared  in  danger,  we  conjure  you  by  your 
intei'est,  your  duty,  and  your  glory,  to  stand  to  your  arms,  and  in 
spite  of  a  police,  in  spite  of  a  fencible  militia,  in  virtue  of  two  proclama- 
tions, to  maintain  good  order  in  your  vicinage,  and  tranquillity  in  Ire- 
land." The  police  established  in  the  diiFerent  counties  are  first 
repi-esented  in  an  odious  light  to  the  Volunteers  ;  a  reflection  is  cast 
upon  the  militia,  and  now  the  mercenai'ies  are  stigmatized,  and  a 
distinction  taken  between  them  and  the  Volunteers  of  Ireland,  thus 
summoned  by  the  corporation  of  United  Irishmen.  "  It  is  only  by  the 
military  array  of  men  in  whom  they  confide,  Avhom  they  have  been 
accustomed  to  revere  as  the  guardians  of  domestic  peace,  the  pro- 
tectors of  their  liberties  and  lives,  that  the  present  agitation  of  the 
people  can  be  stilled,  that  tumult  and  licentiousness  can  be  repressed, 
obedience  secured  to  existing  law,  and  a  calm  confidence  diffused 
through  the  public  mind,  in  the  speedy  resm-rection  of  a  free  con- 
stitution, of  liberty  and  of  equality."  Here,  gentlemen,  let  me  call 
your  attention.  What  meaning  can  be  given  to  these  words  by  the 
plainest    man    in    the  hall   of  these   courte  ?     What  !  was   our  free 


62  TRIAL    OF 

constitution  dead  ?     Do  the  gentlemen  intend  by  way  of  argument 
to  excuse  this,  as  the  consideration  of  a  grievance  ?     They  tell  the 
l>eople  they  have  no  constitution,  that  they  miglit  look  for  another. 
Is  this  a  cool  disquisition  upon  a  matter,  that  every  man  has  a  right 
to  inquire  into  ?    Is  not  this  to  excite  tumult  ?    Liberty  and  Equality  ! 
Words,  gentlemen,  that  it  would  be  painful  to  me  to  observe  upon  to 
the  extent   to  which   they  go,  words   that  suggest  but  too  much  to 
every  good   and  reasonable  mind  ;  there  is  no  man  in  this  kingdom 
who  would  not  lay  down  his  life  to  presei've  true  liberty  and  equality  ; 
but  these  are  but  deceptions  to  cajole  the  ignorant :   the  vulgar  abuse 
of  a   constitution    which    we    possess   to    the    envy   of    the    world. 
"  Liberty  and  equality,  words  which  w^e   use  for  an  opportunity  of 
repelling  calumny  and  of  saying,  that  by  liberty  we  never  understood 
unlimited  freedom,  nor  by  equality,  the  levelling  of  property,  or  the 
destruction  of  subordination.     This  is  a  calumny  invented   by  that 
faction,  or  that  gang,  which  misrepresents  the  king  to  the  people, 
and  the  people  to  the  king,  traduces  one  half  of  the  nation  to  cajole 
the   other,  and  by  keeping  up   distrust  and  division,  wishes  to  con- 
tinue the  proud  arbitrators  of  the  fortune  and  fate  of  Ireland."     Is  not 
this  traducing  the  government  ?     But  attend,  gentlemen,  to  their  de- 
finition of  liberty.     "  Liberty  is  the  exercise  of  all  our  rights,  natural 
and  political,  secured  to  us  and  our  posterity  by  a  real  representation 
of  the  people  ;  and  equality  is  the  extension  of  the  constitvient,  to  the 
fullest  dimensions  of  the  constitution,  of  the  elective  franchise  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  people,  to  the  end  that  government,   which  is  col- 
lective power,  may  be  guided  by  collective  will,   and  that  legislation 
may  originate  from  public  reason,  keep  pace  with  public  improvement, 
and    terminate    in   public    happiness."       Certainly,    gentlemen,    the 
sentence  is  very  sonorous,  and  agreeable  enough  to  the   ear ;  but  to 
the  mind  it  conveys  nothing  but  this,  that  government  is  to  be  con- 
ducted by  the  will  of  every  man,  high  and  low,  rich  and  poor,  ignorant 
and  leai'ned  ;  the  people  are  to  govern  the  people,   and  how  they  will 
do  so,   unhappily  for  mankind,  has   been  learned  from  experience. 
Mark  this  next  passage,  gentlemen,  for  I  confess  I  do  not  under- 
stand it.     "  If  our  constitution  be  imperfect,  nothing  but  a  reform 
in    the    representation    will   rectify    its    abuses ;     if    it   be    perfect, 
nothing    but   the    same    reform    will    perpetuate    its    blessings."     If 
our    constitution    be    imperfect,    nothing  but    a  reform  will  render 
it  perfect ;   if  it  be   perfect,    still  the  reform  is   necessary  to  keep 
it  perfect.     In  whatever  light  it  is  viewed,  reform  is  necessary,  and 
a  good  constitution  requires  amendment  as  much  as  a  bad  one.     I 
do  not  feel  it   necessary  to  dwell  upon  this,   because   it  is  so   un- 
intelligible,   that    it   cannot   deserve    notice.      But   see    next   what 
endeavours   have    been   used   to   render  odious    among   the    people, 
those  forces  upon  whom  our  peace  and  tranquillity  depend.     "  We  now 
address  you  as  citizens,  for  to  be  citizens  you  became  soldiers,  nor  can 
we  help  wishing  that  all  soldiers,  partaking  the  passions  and  interests 
of  the  people,  would  remember  that  they  were  once  citizens,  that 
seduction  made  them  soldiers,  but  nature  made  them  men."     How  will 
my  learned  friend  when  he  comes  to  speak   of  this  part  of  the  case 
satisfy  you,  that  it  was  necessary  in  a  ])ublication  of  this  sort,  recom- 
mending a  reform  in  parliament,  and  to  be  disseminated  among  thousands, 


An<:HiBALr>  iiamii^ton  uowax.  (j;5 

to  tell  the  soldiers,  th(i  forces  of  the  state,  that  their  profession  was 
dishonourable,  that  they  were  imposed  upon,  that  they  should  not 
be  entrusted  with  the  protection  of  the  state  ?  Gentlemen,  1  am 
unwilling  to  dwell  upon  these  passages,  it  is  but  necessary  to  mention 
them  to  shew  their  danger,  if  they  deserve  consideration  you  will 
give  it  to  them,  if  not,  you  will  not  waste  your  attention  upon  them. 
"  That  nature  made  them  men."  It  required  no  authority  to  satisfy 
them  of  that.  "We  address  you  without  any  authority,  save  that  of 
reason,  and  if  Ave  obtain  the  coincidence  of  ])ublic  opinion,  it  is 
neither  by  force  nor  stratagem,  for  we  have  no  power  to  terrify,  no 
artifice  to  cajole,  no  fund  to  seduce.  Here  Ave  sit  Avithout  mace  or 
beadle."  What  they  allude  to,  I  suppose  you,  gentlemen,  apprehend; 
they  seem  to  disdain  any  distinction  in  civil  institutions.  "  Neither  a 
mystery,  nor  a  craft,  nor  a  corporation In  four  Avords  lies  all  our 

power,  UNIVERSAL  EMANCIPATION  and  REPRESENTATIVE  LEGISLA- 
TURE." In  these  four  words  lies  all  the  poAver  of  the  United 
Irishmen,  according  to  this  publication,  approved  of  by  the  traverser ; 
he  himself  a  member  of  that  society,  and  secretary  of  the  meeting 
which  composed  it.  "  UniAcrsal  Emancipation  !"  By  that  I  presmne 
is  meant  the  giving  a  right  of  voting,  to  CACry  man  in  the  community. 
"  And  Representative  Legislature  !"  The  meaning  of  these  Avords,  is 
but  too  obA'ious.  The  constitution  is  often  in  the  mouths  of  men, 
Avhen  the  destruction  of  it  is  in  their  hearts.  If  the  plan  of  these 
people  were  carried  into  effect,  where  would  be  the  House  of  Peers  ? — 
for  our  legislature,  gentlemen,  consists  of  King,  Lords  and  Commons. 
When  government  is  guided  by  the  will  of  all  the  people  and  their 
force  carried  into  action,  Avhere  Avill  be  the  House  of  Peers  ?  AVTiere 
Avill  be  our  constitution  ?  buried  in  the  anarchy  of  republican  poAver, 
formed  from  the  dregs  of  the  people.  A  goA'ernment  consisting  of 
all  the  people,  guided  by  the  will  of  all  the  people  ;  Avhat  sense  but 
this  can  be  put  upon  these  words  ?  If  indeed  the  context  of  the  paper 
shews  you,  gentlemen,  that  any  thing  else  was  meant,  than  as  I 
interpret  the  words,  you  will  take  it  altogether  in  that  sense,  in  Avhich 
it  appears  to  haA*e  been  meant.  God  forbid  I  should  endeaAour  to 
Avrest  any  thing  to  impute  guilt  to  the  gentleman,  Avho  now  stands  at 
your  bar,  that  the  Avhole  of  the  paper  does  not  warrant !  But  if  the 
words  bear  that  meaning  which  I  give  them,  who  will,  say,  that  guilt 
shall  not  be  imputed  to  him  ?  You  Avill  form  your  opinion  from 
reading  the  Avhole,  and  comparing  the  scA^eral  parts  with  each  other. 
Here  comes  a  sentence  Avhich  Avill  puzzle  you  a  little,  but  Avhich  Avith 
some  comment  may  be  understood.  "  Yet  we  are  confident  that  on 
the  pivot  of  this  principle,  a  convention,  less  still,  a  society,  less  a 
single  man,  will  be  able  first  to  moA^e  and  then  to  raise  the  world." 
Here  is  an  open  declaration  of  their  Avish  to  raise  the  people,  not  only 
of  this  coiuitry  but  of  the  Avhole  Avorld ;  a  proof  of  peaceable  intent. 
"  We  therefore  Avish  for  Catholic  emancipation  Avithout  any  modification, 
but  still  Ave  consider  this  necessary  enfranchisement  as  merely  the 
portal  to  the  temple  of  national  freedom  ;  Avide  as  this  entrance  is — 
wide  enough  to  admit  three  millions — it  is  narroAv  Avhen  compared  to 
the  capacity  and  comprehension  of  our  beloved  principle,  Avhich  takes 
in  cA'ery  individual  of  the  Irish  nation,  casts  an  equal  eye  over  the 
Avhole  island,   embraces   all  that  think,   and  feels  for   all  that  suffer. 


64  TRIAL    OF 

The  Catholic  cause  is  subordinate  to  our  cause,  and  included  in  it ; 
for,  as  United  Irishmen,  we  adhere  to  no  sect,  but  to  society — ^to  no 
creed,  but  Christianity — to  no  party,  but  to  the  Avhole  people.     In  the 
sincerity  of  our  souls,  do  we  desire  Catholic  emancipation ;  but  were 
it  obtained  to-morrow,  to-morrow  would  we  go  on  as  we  do  to-day, 
in  the  pursuit  of  that  reform,  which  would  still  be  wanting  to  ratify 
their  liberties  as  well  as  oui"  own.     For  both  these  purposes  it  ajjpears 
necessary  that  provincial  conventions  should  assemble  pi'eparatory  to 
the  convention  of  the  Protestant  people.     The  delegates  of  the  Catholic 
body  are  not  justified  in  communicating  with  individuals,  or  even  bodies 
of  inferior  authority,  and  therefore  an  assembly  of  a  similar  nature  and 
organization,"  (French  language  still  occurring  with  French  ideas) 
"is  necessary  to  establish  an  intercourse  of  sentiment,  an  uniformity  of 
conduct,  an  united  cause  and  an  united  nation.     If  a  convention  on 
the  one  part  does  not  soon  follow,  and  is  not  soon  connected   with 
that  on  the  other,  the  common  cause  will  split  into  the  partial  intei-est ; 
the  people  relax  into  inattention  and  inertness  ;  the  union  of  affection 
and  exertion  will  dissolve  ;  and  too  probably  some  local  insurrections, 
instigated  by  the  malignity  of  our  common  enemy,   may  commit  the 
character  and  risk  the  tranquillity  of  the  island."      Gentlemen,  the 
paper  mentions  here  the  common  enemy ;  as  to  Avho  is  meant  by  the 
expression,  you  will  judge ;  did  they  mean  those  who  were   about  to 
defeat  their  machinations,  and  who  would  not  commit  the  tranquillity 
of  the  island  to  the  convention  to  be  assembled  ?    It  says  "  an  assembly 
of   a   similar   nature   and   organization    is    necessary."      These    are 
Gallic  sentences  and  suited  only  to  the   soil   of  France.     "  Local 
insurrection  may  commit   the    character    and   risk   the  tranquillity 
of   the  island,   which  can  be  obviated  only  by  the  influence  of  an 
assembly  arising  from,  assimilated  with  the  people,  and  whose  spirit 
may  be,  as  it  were,   knit  with   the  soul  of  the  nation,   unless  the 
sense  of  the  Protestant  people  be,   on  their  part,  as  fairly  collected 
and  as  jvidiciously  directed;  unless  individual  exertion   consolidates 
into  collective  strength  ;  unless  the  particles  unite  into  one   mass,  we 
may  perhaps  serve  some  person  or  some  party  for  a  little,  but  the 
public  not   at  all.     The  nation   is   neither  insolent,   nor    rebellious, 
nor  seditious.     While  it  knows  its  rights,  it  is  unwilling  to  mani- 
fest its  powers  ;    it  would  rather   supplicate  administration  to  an- 
ticipate  revolution    by   a    well-timed    reform,    and   to    serve   their 
country  in  mercy  to  themselves." An  addi-ess  to  the  Volun- 
teers    to     obtain     universal     emancipation  ! — holding      out,      that 
this    kind    of    remonstrance    should    be    attended   to,    before    the 
power  of  the  nation  should  be  exerted.     What  meaning  does  a  com- 
mon understanding  annex  to  these  words  ?     Was  it  not  a  threat  ? 
Was  it  not  to  spirit  up  the  minds  of  the  people  against  the  members 
of  parliament  ?     Was  it  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  cool  investi- 
gation, or  to  obtain  constitutional  redress,  that  the  people  should 
exert  their  power  ?  and  to  threaten  parliament,  by  teUing  them  there 
was  a  force  to  be  raised  against  them  ?     Unless  a  reasonable  account 
is  given  why  tliis  language  was  inserted,  and  what  the  meaning  of  it 
was,    I  must  presume,  it  was  for  the  purpose   I  mention.     "  The 
fifteenth  of  February  approaches,  a  day  ever  memorable  in  the  annals 
of  this  country  as  the  birth-day  of  new  Ireland  ;  let  parochial  meetings 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  65 

be  liekl  as  soon  as  possible — [here  you  have  an  exact  delineation  of 
the  French  government] — let  each  parish  return  delegates,  let  the 
sense  of  Ulster  be  again  declared  from  Dungannon  on  a  day  auspi- 
cious to  union,  peace,  and  freedom,  and  the  spirit  of  the  North  will 
again  become  the  spirit  of  the  nation."     Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
you  will  mark  this  next  sentence,  and  it  will  be  a  clue  to  the  whole. 
"  The  civil  assembly  ought  to  claim  the  attendance  of  the  military 
associations,   and  we   have   addressed  you,   citizen  soldiers,   on   this 
subject,  from  the  belief,  thai  your  body,  uniting  conviction  with  zeal, 
and  zeal  with  activity,  may  have  much  influence  over  your  country- 
men, your  relations   and  friends."      The  nation  is  in  danger  from 
foreign  foes  and  from  domestic  enemies — so  they  state.     The  procla- 
mation calls  forth  the  forces  of  the  state.     The  United  Irishmen  raise 
their  audible  voice,  and  call  the  people  to  arms.     For  what  ?     Is  it 
to  assist  the  government  to  repel  the  foreign  enemy,  and  seditious  foe  ? 
But  how  ?     A  convention  is  to  be  assembled,  and  they  are  to  call 
around  them  the  national  forces.     The  convention  was  to  meet  at 
Dungannon — there  assembled,  were  these  forces  to  repress  foreign 
foes  and  domestic  sedition  ?     Gentlemen,  it  is  but  too  obvious  for  what 
purpose  this  was  intended :  this  sentence  speaks  the  language  of  the 
whole  of  this  paper — and  if  it  had  been  drawn  with  more  art  than  it 
is,  here  is  the  clue  to  the  whole  : — the  force  of  the  nation  was  to  be 
assembled  under  the  centre  ul  of  the  convention,  assembled  under  the 
great  seal  of  the  United  Irishmen,  who  say  they  are  not  a  corpo- 
ration ;   but  who  have  a  corporation  seal : — For  what  purpose  ?  to 
obtain  imiversal  emancipation  and  representative  legislature  !     They 
are  held  up  as  such  a  force  and  controuling  power,  as  must  produce 
that  eftect  upon  the  king,  lords  and  commons.     An  effect  which  they 
profess  to  have  designed  for  the  good  of  their  country — if  they  did, 
they  should  seek  its  accomplishment,  by  reason  and  by  argument. 
But  to  publish  a  call  to  arms  to  that  power  and  authority  which  for 
years  this  country  has  respected,  and  from  which,  certainly,  since 
1784  every  blessing  in  society  has  been  derived  (and  every  man  who 
looks  for  those  blessings  of  life,  otherwise  than  by  a  due  regard  to  all 
ranks  of  men,  blasphemes  the  God  which  made  us  all) — I  say,  to  call 
u]>on  the  whole  body  of  the  people  to  rise  in  arms,  and  be  their  own 
nders,  is  a  species  of  government,  which,  when  it  comes,  will  be  an 
equal  misfortune  to  the  poor  and  the  rich.     The  rich  would  lose  that 
which  they  enjoy,  and  more — the  power  of  contributing  to  the  neces- 
sities  of   the    poor — industry  Avill   no  longer  continue   to   have  tlie 
motives  to  laboiu'  and  those  habits  of  economy  which  the  protection 
of  a  mild  constitution  encourages,  but  the  people  will  be  turned  out 
to  a  system  of  plunder,  robbery  and  murder,  such  as  we  find  prevail- 
ing in  another  country.     The  paper  goes  on  and  recites,  "  We  offer 
only  a  general  outline  to  the  public,  and  meaning  to  address  Ireland, 
we  presume  not  at  present  to  fill  up  the  plan  or  pre-occupy  the  mode 
of  its  execution,  we  have  thought  it  our  duty  to  speak — Answer  us 
by  actions.     [An  open  invitation  to  force  and  violence.]     You  have 
taken  time  for  consideration.     Fourteen  long  years  are  elapsed  since 
tlie  rise  of  your  associations  ;  and  in  1782  did  you  imagine  that  in 
1792  this  nation  would  still  remain  unrepresented?"     These  Volun- 
teers of  1782  had  not  all  these  schemes  in  view — but  this  Society 


66  TRIAL   Of 

here  expressly  tells  the  people,  with  arms  in  their  hands,  that  they 
remain  unrepresented  ;  and  adds,  "  How  many  nations  in  this  interval 
have  gotten  the  start  of  Ireland  ?  How  many  of  our  countrymen 
have  sunk  into  the  grave  ?"  What  is  meant  by  nations  having  got 
the  start  of  Ireland  ?  is  it  the  revolution  in  France  ;  they  indeed 
have  gotten  the  start  of  Ii'eland  in  calamity  and  distress,  long  may 
they  hold  their  distance,  and  that  long  may  be  the  period  before  we 
shall  overtake  them,  is  my  most  sincere  and  earnest  wish. 

Such  is  this  paper — I  have  read  it  accurately.     Gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  it  is  for  you  to  consider  the  whole  of  it,  and  determine  whether 
it  was  published  by  Mr.  Rowan,  and  whether  it  be  a  libel  or  not  ?     If 
you  should  be  of  opinion  that  Mr.  Rowan  is  guilty  of  publishing  this 
paper,  then  you  are  to  consider  whether  it  is  a  libel  or  not  ?     Gentle- 
men, it  is  the  peculiar  felicity  of  this  country,  the  great  blessing  of 
our  constitution,  that  Ave  have  a  trial  by  jury  ;  in  France  it  is  polluted  ; 
but  it  is  the  boast  of  our  constitution  that  we  have  a  trial  by  jury, 
and  the  great  preservative  of  that  blessing  and  of  the  constitution 
itself,  is  the  liberty  of  the  press  ;  that  is  the  great  bulwark  of  our  free 
constitution,  we  have  a  trial  by  jury,  and  of  the  freedom  of  the  press 
you  are  the   guardians.      You,  gentlemen,  are  by  the   constitution 
appointed  to  decide  upon  all  these  questions  touching  the  freedom  of 
the  press.     The  freedom  of  the  press  cannot  be  destroyed  but  in  two 
ways,  first,  by  the  overweening  power  of  the  crown,  2dly,  by  its  own 
licentiousness,  corrupting  the  minds  of  the  people  ;  and  when  it  is 
destroyed,  then  will  our  constitution  be  at  an  end.     While  the  press 
is  left  open  to  cool  and  fair  discussion  upon  legal  and  public  topics  of 
grievance  and  constitution,  so  long  will  the  freedom  of  our  constitu- 
tion endure,  and  whenever  an  attempt  is  made  to  controul  it,  you  will 
step  in  and  guard  and  protect  it  as  you  would  guard  your  property, 
your  lives,  and  your  liberties ;  you  will  secure  it  from  licentiousness. 
Where  its  licentiousness  is  not  punished  through  the  weakness  or 
timidity  of  a  jury,  its  freedom  can  no  longer  exist.     What  does  the 
paper  which  is  the  subject  of  the  present  question  purport  to  be  ?  it 
looks  for  a  reform  of  parliament,  it  calls  to  arms  the  citizens  under 
pretence  of  supporting  the  government  by  resisting  it,  by  speaking  of 
grievances  which  cannot  be  endured,  it  is  overawing  the  parliament. 
If  such  licentiousness  be  tolerated,  then  the  freedom  of  the  press  will 
be  destroyed.      You,  gentlemen,  Avill   consider  whether  this   paper 
contains  in  itself  internal  evidence  to  shew  that  the  motives  of  its 
publication  were  not  for  the  purpose  of  reasoning  with  the  people,  or 
for  the  necessary  connection  of  any  evil  in  the  constitution,  but  to 
excite  sedition  and  tumult.     If  in  that  case  you  believe  that  Mr. 
Rowan  published  it,  then  you  must  find  him  guilty.     If,  on  the  other 
hand,  you  are  of  opinion,  that  this  was  a  cool  and  dispassionate  papex', 
reasoning  with  the  people  in  a  becoming  manner,  acknowledging  the 
authority  of  the  law,  then  you  will  acquit  him.     Further,  let  the 
tendency  of  the  paper  be  what  it  may,  if  you  are  of  opinion,  he  did 
not  publish  it,  then  you  must  acquit  him.     We  will  produce  a  witness 
to  shew  he  published  an  individual  papei' — we  will  prove  that  he  took 
several  others  and  dispersed  them  abroad — if  you  believe  the  evidence, 
it  will  be  impossible  but  that  you  must  be  satisfied  he  is  guilty.    Tlius 
stands  the  evidence.     I  have  stated  that  the  traverser  was  Secretary 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  67 

to  the  United  Ii-islimen.  It  will  be  proved  thus : — he  published  that 
paper  ;  if  he  did,  he  acknowledged  the  contents  of  it  to  be  true,  and 
the  paper  states  him  to  be  secretary  of  the  Society.  Gentlemen, 
such  is  the  case  as  it  appears  to  me  on  the  pai-t  of  the  crown.  I  will 
not  pretend  to  anticipate  what  may  be  offered  by  the  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side.  Two  topics,  however,  have  occurred  as  likely  to  be 
introduced: — one  is,  the  case  of  the  Volunteers — the  other,  the 
functions  of  a  jury  under  the  late  act  of  parliament.  Upon  the  first, 
I  have  said  abundance  to  satisfy  you.  I  will  suppose  however,  that  this 
paper  was  addressed  to  the  old  Volunteers :  what  then  ?  The 
tendency  of  the  paper  was  to  excite  those  Volunteers  to  commit 
actions  that  would  tarnish  the  honour  acquired  by  their  previous 
conduct.  Let  them  shew  that  the  proclamation  (against  which  this 
was  a  counter  proclamation)  went  against  the  old  Volunteers — it 
meant  no  such  thing — it  describes  them  so  and  so.  But  there  were 
among  the  old  Volunteers  men  actuated  by  new  principles  and  new 
motives,  that  it  became  the  duty  of  government  to  suppress  them. 
For  your  sake  they  did  so — no  government  should  be  influenced  but 
by  the  prosperity  of  the  whole  state.  But  in  what  respect  did  these 
men  resemble  the  old  Volunteers  ?  Not  in  a  single  feature  :  these  men 
were  assembled  by  the  call  of  the  United  Irishmen  in  Back-lane  ;  the 
ancient  Volunteers  were  assembled  by  the  call  of  govei'nment  and  the 
Lord  Lieutenant,  who  distributed  arms  among  them  from  the  arsenal, 
for  the  public  defence  ;  they  added  to  these  out  of  their  own  pockets 
whatever  they  thought  necessary ;  they  were  collected  to  support  that 
constitution  which  is  now  sought  to  be  overturned.  Were  these  new 
Volunteers  of  that  description  ?  Were  they  so  formed  ?  How  were 
they  equipped  ?  The  green  cockade  was  adopted  in  the  place  of  the 
black.  I  have  no  necessity  for  this  ;  but  fearful  that  men  will  have 
recourse  to  such  topics  to  cajole  you,  I  think  it  necessary  to  take  notice 
of  them.  Secondly,  as  to  the  act  of  parliament  within  this  kingdom, 
I  am  not  aware  that  it  operates  here ;  but  even  by  it,  as  it  now  stands 
and  I  told  you  so  before,  you  have  a  right  to  enter  into  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  intention  upon  this  occasion,  as  you  would  upon  the  trial 
of  any  other  offence.  Gentlemen,  to  you,  and  most  willingly,  I 
commit  this  case  ;  I  desire  no  more  than  that  you  will  by  your 
verdict  vindicate  the  freedom  of  the  press  and  punish  the  licentious- 
ness of  it. 

First  witness  for  the  prosecution — John  Lyster. — Examined  by  the 

Prime-  Serjeant. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  l6th  of  December  1792  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  having  been  at  any  place  that  day  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  At  one  Pai-don's  house  in  Cope-street. 

Q.  Were  there  many  people  assembled  there  ?  A.  There  were  to 
the  amount  of  150  or  200,  with  side-arms  and  uniforms ;  there  was  a 
table  in  the  room. 

Q.  Did  any  person,  and  who,  sit  at  that  table  ?  A,  There  was 
Mr.  Hamilton  Rowan  and  Mr.  Napper  Tandy  at  it,  and  a  good  many 
others. 

Q.  (By  the  court — What  do  you  mean  by  uniforms?  A.  Regi- 
mental uniforms — scaxdet  with  different  facings.) 


68  TRIAL   OF 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  person  of  Mr.  Rowan  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  (By  the  coui't — Do  you  know  him  now  ?  A.  He  is  just 
opposite  to  me.) 

Q.  Was  he  sitting  at  the  table  ?  A.  At  one  time  he  was — at 
another  time  he  was  standing. 

Q.  What  brought  you  there  ?     A.  Merely  curiosity. 

Q.  How  was  it  excited  ?  A.  I  happened  to  pass  through  Cope- 
street,  and  saw  a  great  crowd — I  asked  what  it  was — they  said  it  was 
a  meeting  of  the  United  Irishmen.  My  brother  was  with  me,  and 
we  went  into  the  room ;  we  were  in  coloured  clothes,  and  to  the  best 
of  my  recollection,  Mr.  Rowan  said,  no  gentleman  with  coloured 
clothes  could  be  there ;  but  mentioned,  that  there  was  a  gallery 
to  which  we  might  go, 

Q.  Did  you  perceive  any  person  perform  any  particular  part  in 
that  assembly  ?  A.  I  perceived  Mr.  Rowan  about  the  table  very 
busy — he  had  papers  in  his  hand,  and  there  was  pen  and  ink  on  the 
table ;  he  walked  about  the  room,  with  the  papers  in  his  hand. 
Napper  Tandy  came  up  to  him,  read  part  of  one  of  the  papers — they 
were  handed  about — some  were  handed  up  to  the  gallery — I  got  one 
of  them,  and  so  did  my  brother,  and  several  others  in  the  gallery 
along  with  me. 

Q.  Look  at  that  paper — is  that  the  one  ?  A.  This  is  the  paper  I 
got  there. 

Q.  Was  it  one  of  the  papers  handed  up  to  the  gallery  ?  A.  It 
was  one  of  the  papers  handed  by  Mr.  Rowan  to  some  of  the  people 
about  him,  and  by  them  handed  up  to  the  gallery. 

Q.  Your  brother  also  got  one  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Was  thei-e  a  number  distributed  ?  A.  About  30  were  thrown 
up  to  the  gallery. 

Q.  Have  you  any  reason  to  ascertain  that  to  be  the  particular 
paper  ?     A.  I  have,  because  it  has  my  own  hand- writing  upon  it. 

Q.  You  made  that  memorandum  upon  it  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Read  it.  A.  "  I  got  this  paper  at  a  meeting  of  the  United 
Ii-ishmen  in  Cope-street,  the  1 6th  of  December — it  came  through  the 
hands  of  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan." 

Q.  (By  the  court — You  say  one  of  these  papers  was  read  by  Mr. 
Rowan,  how  do  you  know  that  ?  A.  Because  I  attended  to  the  words 
he  read,  and  they  agreed  with  what  are  in  this  paper. 

Q.  Can  you  swear  that  one  of  these  very  papers  was  read  by 
him  ?  A.  I  can  swear  that  part  of  the  words  were  read,  I  cannot 
swear  to  the  whole.) 

Cross-examined  by  the  Recorder. 

Q.  At  what  hour  was  this  ?  A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  it 
was  between  one  and  two. 

Q.  Was  this  upon  the  1 6th  of  December  ?  A.  It  was  upon  the 
16th  of  December,  1792. 

Q,  It  was  upon  a  Sunday  ?     A.  I  believe  it  was. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  ?  A.  For  about  three  quarters 
of  an  hour. 

Q.  There  were  about  one  or  two  hundred  Volunteers  below  stairs  ? 
A.  There  were. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  69 

Q.  Were  they  dressed  in  the  uniforms  which  you  had  seen  the  old 
Volunteers  were  ?  A.  I  cannot  exactly  say  as  to  the  facings  of  the 
uniforms — some  of  them  were  green. 

Q.  Had  not  some  of  the  old  Volunteers  green  uniforms  ?  A.  They 
had,  and  there  were  some  of  the  old  Volunteers  in  the  room. 

Q.  Were  not  the  old  Volunteer  uniforms  scarlet  faced  with  different 
colours  ?     A.  They  were. 

Q.  Were  all  these  men  sitting  down,  or  walking  up  and  down  ? 
A.  They  were  walking — there  were  very  few  forms  or  chaii's  in 
the  room. 

Q.  Were  they  conversing  ?     A.  They  were  chatting  and  talking. 

Q.  Did  you  see  many  of  them  go  up  to  this  table  where  the 
papers  were  ?  A.  I  saw  a  good  many  of  them  go  up  to  it,  in  the 
course  of  their  walking  back  and  forward. 

Q.  Did  you  see  many  take  papers  off  the  table  ?  A.  I  did  not  see 
very  many  of  them — I  saw  four,  or  five,  or  six  of  them. 

Q.  They  read  them  and  handed  them  about  ?  A.  Yes,  I  saw 
them  do  so. 

Q.  Did  you  not  see  them  hand  them  about,  from  one  to  another  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  By  virtue  of  your  oath,  did  you  ever  see  that  paper  in  your 
hand,  in  the  hands  of  Mi\  Rowan.  A.  I  swear  it  was  among  the 
parcel  upon  the  table,  some  of  which  were  handed  up  to  the  gallery 
— I  cannot  say  it  was  touched  by  his  fingers. 

Q.  (By  the  court — You  say  it  was  among  the  parcel  handed  to  the 
gallery?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  By  whom  ?  A.  It  was  in  the  bundle  handed  by  Mr.  Rowan 
to  several  there,  and  by  them  handed  up  to  the  gallery.) 

Q.  Did  that  bundle  of  papers  pass  through  the  hands  of  more 
Volunteers  than  one,  before  it  came  to  the  gallery?  A.  I  believe  it  did. 

Q.  Did  he  hand  several  parcels  ?  A.  I  only  saw  him  hand  one  to 
a  Volunteer,  who  gave  it  to  another. 

Q.  Then  it  went  through  the  hands  of  several,  before  it  got  to  the 
gallery  ?     A.  It  did,  through  four  or  five. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  name  of  any  man  through  whose  hands  it 
passed  ?    A.  I  cannot — I  was  not  so  well  acquainted  with  the  gentlemen. 

Q.  When  this  bundle  of  papers  was  handed  up,  do  you  know  who 
in  the  gallery  received  it  ?  A.  They  were  broken  and  separated,  I 
held  out  my  hand  and  got  one  of  them — my  brother  another,  and 
other  people  got  some. 

Q.  Were  there  many  in  the  gallery  ?    A.  There  were  a  great  many. 

Q.  Did  every  man  there  get  one  ?  A.  I  cannot  say — every  one 
that  chose  to  take  one,  might. 

Q.  Did  they  hand  them  about  in  the  gaUery  ?  A.  The  next  man 
saw  what  his  neighbour  got ;  they  gave  them  about ;  but  I  never  parted 
with  mine  till  yesterday. 

Q.  Did  you  know  any  other  Volunteers  below  stairs  besides  Mr 
Rowan  ?  A.  I  did,  Mr.  Tandy  ;  and  to  the  best  of  my  recollection, 
there  was  a  Mr.  Kenny  whom  I  knew  before. 

Q.  Did  several  of  the  Volunteers  below  stairs  hand  up  papers  to 
the  gallery  or  not  ?     A.  I  dare  say  several  of  them  did. 

Q.  Did  not  several  men  take  papers  from  the  table  ?    A.  I  suppose 


70  TRIAL  OF 

they  did — I  did  not  observe  whether  tliey  did  or  not.     Several,  as 
they  passed  back  and  forward,  went  to  the  table,  and  might  take  them  off. 
Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  several  did  take  papers  off  ?     A.  Several 
of  them  did. 

Q.  You  saw  those  papers  passed  through  the  hands  of  four  or  five 
Volunteers,  before  they  came  to  the  gallery  ?  A.  A  parcel  of  the 
papers  among  which  this  was,  came  up. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  pitch  upon  that  paper  so  accurately  ?  A.  I 
was  the  first,  who  put  out  my  hand. 

Q.  Did  you  watch  this  particular  paper  ?  A.  Not  that  particular 
paper,  but  the  bundle  in  which  it  was. 

Q.  "Will  you  swear,  there  were  no  other  papers  handed  up  ?  A.  To 
the  best  of  my  knowledge,  there  were  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  put  that  memorandum  upon  it  ?  A.  The  very 
day  I  got  it. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  In  my  lodging. 

Q.  Did  any  body  advise  you  to  make  a  memorandum  ?  A.  No  one 
did : — I  generally,  when  I  get  an  improper  paper,  make  such  memo- 
randum. 

Q.  For  what  purjiose  ?     A.  Just  a  fancy  of  my  own. 
Q.  Did  you  make  that  memorandum  in  order  to  enable  you  to 
prove  it  upon  a  prosecution  ?     A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  first  communicate  your  having  this  paper 
and  the  memorandum  ?  A.  I  shall  tell  you.  There  was  a  brother 
of  mine  who  did  business  for  the  late  Mr.  Adderley — there  were 
different  accounts  between  them — my  brother  went  to  the  Castle  to 
Mr.  Hobart  to  shew  the  accounts — Mr.  now  Lord  Hobart,  desired  my 
brother  to  call  upon  Mr.  Pollock,  the  agent  for  young  Mr.  Adderley. — 
Mr.  Pollock  said  he  had  heard  that  I  and  my  brother  were  present  at 
the  meeting  in  Cope-street,  and  that  he  understoood  it  was  a  very 
improper  meeting. 

Q.  How  long  was  this  after  the  meeting  ?  A.  I  cannot  say. 
Q.  Was  it  a  week  or  a  month  ?  A.  I  cannot  recollect.  Mr.  Pollock 
said,  "  You  have  been  there  I  understand."  I  said,  we  were,  and  that 
we  saw  such  things  going  forward.  I  had  one  of  the  papei's  in  my 
pocket  and  shewed  it  to  him.  He  said,  Mr.  Hobart  heard  I  was 
there,  and  that  I  should  give  information  of  it  as  it  was  against  the 
king  and  constitution.  I  said  I  would  not  encourage  any  thing  against 
the  king,  but  would  do  what  was  proper.  Mr.  Kemmis  came  to  my 
lodging  next  day — the  circumstances  were  talked  over — we  said  we 
would  make  no  delay  in  making  any  information  concerning  it,  and 
it  Avas  in  that  manner  they  came  to  a  knowledge  of  it. 

Q.  (By  the  court)  What  Mr.  Kemmis  ?     A.  The  Crown  Solicitor. 
Q.  Were    you  of   any  profession  at  the  time   you    attended   this 
meeting  ?     A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  You  are  in  the  army  now  ?     A.  I  have  that  honour. 
Q.  What  Commission  ?     A.  An  ensign's  commission. 
Q.  How  long  since  did  you  obtain  it  ?     A.  I  have  been  gazetted 
since  the  27th  of  June  last. 

Q.  In  what  regiment  ?     A.  In  the  40th. 

Q.  You  say  you  heard  some  of  that  paper  read  ?     A.  I  do,  Sir,  the 
greater  part  of  it. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  71 

Q.  Was  this  when  all  the  Volunteers  were  walking  about  ?  A.  Some 
were  walking  about,  others  gathered  about  the  place,  while  the  paper 
was  reading  by  Mi*.  Rowan. 

Q.  Can  you  point  out  any  part  of  the  paper  you  heard  read.  A.  I 
can. 

Q.  Show  such  part  as  you  heard  ?  A.  He  began,  "  The  Society  of 
United  Irishmen,"  and  so  on. 

Q.  He  did  not  read  it  all  ?     A.  He  read  the  greater  part. 

Q.  Can  you  say  where  he  stopped  ?     A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Did  you  obtain  your  commission  by  purchase  ?  A.  No,  I  did 
not ;  I  got  it  through  the  interest  of  a  lady  I  have  the  honour  of  being 
related  to — Lady  Hobart. 

Q.  Pray,  were  you  ever  a  witness  to  a  bond  or  two  bonds  executed 
by  your  fatlier  to  one  of  your  brothers  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  To  your  younger  brother  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  there  any  suit  or  issue  directed  to  try  whether  the  bond 
was  genuine  or  a  forgery  ?  A.  There  was  an  issue  to  try  whether  it 
was  my  fatliei''s  bond  or  not.  I  do  not  say  it  was  to  try  whether  it 
was  a  forgery. 

Q.  Was  it  not  alleged  by  your  father  and  your  elder  brother  that  it 
was  a  forgery  ?  A.  My  elder  brother  thought  to  keep  my  younger 
brother  out  of  the  property,  and  I  supposed  he  alleged  it  was  a  forgery. 
I  am  Sony  to  mention  these  matters  here.  My  father  filed  a  bill 
against  us,  alleging  the  bonds  to  be  forgeries,  and  Mr.  Simon  Butler,* 
a  very  honourable  gentleman,  to  whom  I  am  under  many  obligations, 
undertook  the  business,  and  we  recovered  the  money.  I  see  the 
defendant  has  brought  parchments  into  court  this  day.  I  saw  Mr. 
Blake  who  is  to  give  evidence  against  me  here.  If  I  was  aware  of 
these  things  being  mentioned,  I  should  have  the  gentleman  here  who 
could  prove  them — I  speak  of  the  bonds  for  £500. 

Q.  Was  there  not  an  issue  to  try  them  ?  A.  There  was  an  order 
to  have  it  tried  in  the  country. 

Q.  Were  you  not  examined  in  the  country  upon  that  trial  ?  A.  I 
believe  I  was. 

Q.  You  are  not  sure  ?     A.  I  am  sure. 

Q.  Did  you  swear  to  the  due  execution  of  these  bonds  ?  A.  To 
the  best  of  my  knowledge  I  was  examined — I  was  witness  to  the 
bond. 

Q.  Can  you  swear  whether  you  were  examined  or  not?  A.  I 
cannot  say  positively  whether  I  was  or  not — one  of  my  brothers  was 
examined — My  elder  brother,  I  believe,  cried  out  to  the  jmy,  that  he 
would  leave  it  to  a  reference. 

Q.  You  cannot  swear  positively  whether  you  were  examined  or 
not?     A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  you  were  examined  ?  A.  I  cannot  swear 
positively  I  was ;  I  do  believe  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  was — 
but  I  cannot  swear  positively. 

Q.  How  long  is  this  ago  ?  A.  It  is  a  good  while — I  cannot  exactly 
say. 

Q.  Is  it  three  years  ago  ?     A.  I  believe  it  is. 

*  An  intimate  friend  of  Mr.  Rowan. 


72  TRIAL   OF 

Q.  Only  three  years  ago  and  you  cannot  say  positively  whether 
you  were  examined  or  not?  A.  I  know  I  was  to  be  examined,  but 
I  cannot  say  whether  I  was  or  not. 

Q.  Were  you  not  examined  to  the  best  of  yotar  belief?  A.  To 
the  best  of  my  recollection  I  was ;  but  I  cannot  swear  positively. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  judge  before  whom  that  issue  was  tried  ? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  Before  whom  was  it  ?  A.  Before  one  of  their  lordships  on  the 
bench  (Judge  Boyd.) 

Q.  Were  there  not  more  witnesses  than  one,  examined  to  shew  it 
was  not  your  father's  hand  writing  ?  A.  I  do  not  know,  I  believe 
there  were  many  examined,  but  they  did  not  say  positively  it  was 
not  my  fathei"'s  hand-writing. 

Q.  What  verdict  was  there  ?     A.  There  was  no  verdict  at  all. 

Q.  Was  it  not  because  the  jury  could  not  agree  ?  A.  No,  it  was 
not. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  to  that  ?  A.  I  will  not ;  but  I  think  my  elder 
brother  called  out,  perceiving  himself  wrong,  and  said,  he  would 
leave  it  to  a  reference. 

Q.  Was  it  ever  left  to  the  reference  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  What  was  done  ?  A.  I  cannot  say,  I  was  not  there  ;  but  most 
people   imagined  the  referees  were  wrong  in  doing  as  they  did. 

Q.  Did  they  give  the  amount  of  the  bonds  ?     A.  They  did  not. 

Q.  What  Avas  the  amount  of  the  bonds  ?  A.  One  was  £500  the 
other  £300,  it  is  not  yet  decided,  my  brother  intends  to  bring  it  into 
the  courts  to  set  aside  the  award. 

Q.  (By  the  court.  Do  you  know  what  they  allowed  ?  A.  I 
know  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  ?     A.  Some  hundreds.) 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  it  was  £200  ?     A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Two  hundred  are  some  hundreds  ?  A.  They  are,  but  as  I  was 
not  to  get  any  of  the  money,  I  believe  nothing  about  it. 

Q.  Did  not  a  gentleman  of  the  name  of  Walter  Lambert  file  a  bill 
against  you  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Was  he  executor  of  Peter  Hamilton  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  Why  did  he  file  a  bill?  A.  It  is  a  very  unjust  bill.  Peter 
Hamilton  had  married  my  sister,  he  became  insane  and  I  went  to 
stay  with  him  in  a  madhouse  in  England ;  I  had  no  support  from 
my  father  at  that  time,  and  I  thought  Mr.  Hamilton's  relations 
should  pay  my  expenses  and  support  me ;  a  Mr  Nagle  recommended 
me  to  bring  Mr.  Hamilton  home  ;  I  did  by  force  put  him  on  board  a 
ship  and  brought  him  to  Cork,  and  from  thence  home  to  Galway  ;  he 
had  intervals  of  reason,  and  he  gave  me  a  bond  for  £150  part  of 
which  was  paid.  I  went  to  Judge  Kelly,  a  relation  of  his,  to  inter- 
fere ;  in  some  time  I  got  a  note  for  the  money,  and  after  his  death  the 
executor  filed  a  bill  against  me. 

Q.  Did  he  not  charge  the  note  not  to  be  the  hand- writing  of  Peter 
Hamilton  ?  A.  No :  the  note  was  in  my  hand-writing  with  Mr. 
Hamilton's  name  signed  by  himself. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  recover  any  part  of  it  ?  A.  No,  it  is  not  yet 
determined. 

Q.  Is  there  an  injunction  against  you  ?     A.  No:  I  believe  not;  I 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  73 

was  nonsuited  by  the  neglect  of  Mr.  Morton,  my  attorney,  who  left 
the  papers  in  town,  when  the  trial  came  on  in  the  country. 

Q.  After  you  drew  this  note,  Mr.  Peter  Hamilton  put  his  name  to 
it?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  sued  for  it,  and  did  not  recover?  A.  He  was  as 
perfectly  in  his  senses  when  he  put  his  name  to  it  as  I  am ;  he 
transacted  his  own  business  as  if  he  had  not  been  mad. 

Q.  Did  he  not  live  many  years  after  this  ?  A.  No,  he  did  not : 
he  might  have  lived  many  years  if  he  had  not  shot  himself. 

Q.  (By  Juror,  Mr.  Minchin.  Did  you  see  many  more  of  the 
papers  handed  up  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  there  any  of  another  tendency  ?     A.  There  were  not.) 

Second   "Witness,   Mr.   William   Morton. — Examined   by  the 

Solicitor-General. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  being  at  Cope-street,  Dublin,  on  the  16th  of 
December,  1792  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  to  have  seen  anything  there,  or  to  have  got 
admission  into  any  place  there  ?  A.  I  do  ;  I  saw  a  number  of  men 
assembled  there,  for  what  purpose  I  cannot  say  ;  they  were  arrayed 
in  military  dress. 

Q.  What  were  they  doing  ?  A.  They  drew  up  a  form  of  resolu- 
tions at  a  table. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  to  have  seen  any  particular  person  there  ? 
A.  I  recollect  to  have  seen  Mr.  Hamilton  Rowan  and  Mi-.  Napper 
Tandy. 

Q.  (By  the  court.)     Do  you  know  Mr.  Rowan  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  before  that  day  ?  A.  I  have  seen,  but  was 
not  acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  now  ?     A.  I  do ;  he  is  there,  (pointing  to  him.) 

Q.  Did  or  did  not  Mr.  Rowan  appear  to  take  an  active  part  in  that 
meeting  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  about  papers  of  any  description  ?  A. 
I  shall  mention  Avhat  I  know  :  I  gained  admission  into  the  gallery, 
there  were  a  number  of  papers  or  advertisements  brought  in,  as  if  wet 
from  the  press,  and  distributed  about. 

Q.  Were  they  in  large  or  small  parcels  ?  A.  There  was  a  large 
parcel  in  a  man's  arm,  wet  as  from  the  press. 

Q.  What  became  of  them  ?  A.  They  were  laid  upon  the  table, 
and  some  were  given  to  Mr.  Napper  Tandy. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  of  them  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Had  you  an  opportunity  of  reading  them  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  have  that  opportunity?  A.  I  saw  some  of 
them  taken  up  by  Mr.  Rowan  and  delivered  to  some  of  the  members, 
and  by  them  handed  up  to  the  gallery.  A  gentleman  near  me 
received  one  of  them  ;  I  immediately  took  it  out  of  his  hand  :  there 
were  many  thrown  up  ;  one  was  read  by  a  gentleman,  and  I  remember 
while  he  read  it,  a  number  were  thrown  out  of  the  windows  to  the  mob, 
who  desired  more  of  them,  and  accordingly  they  were  sent  to  them. 

Q.  Was  the  paper  read  in  a  loud  manner  ;  did  every  man  know  what 
was  doing  in  the  gallery  ?     A.  Every  man  could  hear  it  I  believe. 


74  TRIAL   OF 

Q.  Did  you  keep  one  of  these  papers  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  is  it  ?  A.  I  gave  it  to  a  person,  Avho,  I  understand 
has  since  mislaid  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  part  of  it  ?  A.  The  beginning  of  it :  it 
was  from  the  association  of  United  Irishmen  :  it  began — "  To  arms 
citizens,  to  arms !" 

Q.  Did  you  hear  it  read  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  it  was  begun,  did  that  passage  make  an  impression  upon 
you,  that  you  remember  it  ?  A.  It  was  a  young  gentleman  in  the 
gallery  who  read  it  through ;  the  people  there  called  out,  read  it  for 
the  benefit  of  us  all. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Fletcher. 

Q.  Are  you  of  any  profession  ?     A.  I  am  a  gold-beater. 

Q.  Do  you  get  your  livelihood  by  that  ?  A.  I  am  an  apprentice, 
serving  my  time  to  that  business. 

Q.  Is  your  father  living  ?     A.  He  is  not. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  be  at  this  meeting  ?  A.  It  was  on  a  Sunday, 
and  I  was  unemployed.  I  met  a  young  gentleman  who  asked  me  to 
go  to  Cope-street.     I  went  from  curiosity. 

Q.  At  what  hour  did  you  go  there  ?  A.  It  was  in  the  forenoon, 
from  eleven  to  one.     There  were  several  gentlemen  in  uniform. 

Q.  What  was  their  uniform  ?  A.  Scarlet  faced  with  green  ;  there 
were  some  light  infantry  in  their  jackets ;  there  were  different  corps. 

Q.  Upon  your  oath,  were  not  all  the  uniforms  you  saw,  the 
appropriated  uniforms  of  the  old  Volunteer  corps?  A.  I  cannot 
say. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  they  were  ?  A.  I  suppose  they  were  ;  but 
I  had  been  absent,  and  had  not  seen  them  for  some  time. 

Q.  You  were  in  the  gallery  when  you  saw  those  bundles  of 
papers  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Were  there  more  than  one  ?  A.  Not  that  I  remember ;  I  saw 
but  one. 

Q.  Did  not  several  persons  go  up  to  the  table  and  get  these  papers  ? 
A.  I  cannot  say  ;  I  believe  not.  I  was  in  the  gallery  ;  there  was  a 
beam  in  the  middle  of  the  room,  and  when  they  went  to  the  upper 
end  of  the  room,  the  beam  prevented  me  from  seeing  them. 

Q.  You  said  you  saw  Mr.  Rowan  take  one  of  these  papers  and 
hand  it  to  some  otlier  person  ?  A.  I  did  not  say  one :  I  saw  him 
take  some  papers,  and  had  them  about. 

Q.  What  papers  were  they  ?  A.  I  cannot  say,  whether  he  took 
them  off  the  table  or  not.  He  took  part  of  those  that  came  in  : 
several  of  the  members  asked  him  for  some ;  I  suppose  he  gave  them. 

Q.  Supposition  Avill  not  do  ;  say  upon  your  oath,  Avhat  you  saw 
take  place  with  regard  to  Mr.  RoAvan  and  these  papers  ?  A.  When 
they  came  in,  Mr.  Rowan  and  Mr.  Tandy  took  some  of  them,  they 
delivered  them  to  the  Volunteers  ;  one  of  the  Volunteers  threw  some 
up  to  the  gallery,  and  I  got  one. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  there  was  but  one  bundle  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  say,  that  from  your  situation  you  could  not  see  what 
passed  at  the  table  ?     A.  Part  of  the  table  I  could  see. 

Q.  Were  you  in  such  a  situation  as  to  see  everything  which  passed 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  75 

at  the  table  ?  A.  The  Volunteers  were  walking  up  and  down,  and 
sometimes  I  could  not  see  everything  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  names  of  any  of  the  persons  from  whom  these 
papers  came  to  the  gallery  ?  A.  No.  I  did  not  know  any  one  in 
the  room  but  Mr.  Tandy,  and  Mr.  Rowan. 

Q.  Can  you  say  who  the  person  was  who  read  the  paper,  in  the 
gallery  ?     A.  I  cannot.     I  never  saAv  him  before. 

Q.  Did  he  read  it  more  than  once  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Had  you  any  of  the  papers  in  your  hand,  when  he  read  it  ?  A.  I 
had. 

Q.  You  kept  that  paper  which  you  received  ?  A.  I  did  for  some 
time. 

Q.  How  long  ?     A.  I  do  not  recollect :  I  kept  it  a  week  or  less. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  give  it  to  ?     A.  An  acquaintance  of  mine. 

Q.  Has  he  no  name  ?  [Here  the  witness  hesitating  in  his  answer, 
Mr.  Sheriff  Gitfard  called  out,  that  he  was  the  person  to  whom  the 
witness  delivered  the  paper,  upon  which  the  witness  said  it  was  to  Mi*. 
Giffiird.] 

Q.  Why  did  you  resort  to  him  ?  A.  I  had  no  reason  :  I  gave  it 
by  accident. 

Q.  You  had  no  reason  ?  A.  None,  but  that  he  was  the  first  person 
I  met  that  I  was  acquainted  with. 

Q.  Did  you  not  keep  it  a  week  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  it  five  days  ?  A.  No,  I  believe  not ;  for  I  think 
I  gave  it  to  him  the  day  after  I  got  it. 

Q.  When  you  said  you  gave  it  in  a  week,  did  you  mean  the  day 
after  ?     A.  It  was  less  than  a  week. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  you  had  it  but  one  day, 
when  you  said  you  had  it  less  than  a  week  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Upon  your  oath  that  was  the  meaning  you  intended  to  convey  ? 
A.  It  was. 

Q.  Upon  your  oath  you  say  so?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  generally  speak  in  riddles  of  that  kind  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  keep  that  paper  ?  A.  Not  one  day :  on  the 
same  day  that  I  received  it,  I  gave  it  to  Mr.  Gitfard. 

Q.  This  meeting  was  in  the  forenoon  ?     A.  It  Avas. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  paper  was  distributed  did  you  continue  at 
this  assembly  ?     A.  I  do  not  remember  when  it  broke  up. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  dinner  ?     A.  It  was  before  dinner. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.  Did  you  stay  till  the  assembly  broke  up?   A,  I  did.) 

Q.  Can  you  say  how  long  you  remained  in  the  place  after  getting 
that  paper  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  What  do  you  believe  ?  A.  Half  the  time  was  not  elapsed  when 
the  papers  were  distributed,  but  I  do  not  recollect ;  there  was  a  young 
man  with  me  and  we  were  in  conversation. 

Q.  What  became  of  you  afterwards  ?  A.  We  separated  :  he  went 
to  dinner  I  suppose. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ?     A.  I  went  to  Mr.  Ryan. 

Q.  You  dined  there  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Who  is  Mr.  Ryan  ?     A.  He  is  a  surgeon. 

Q.  Did  you  shew  the  paper  to  Mr.  Ryan  ?  A.  No ;  but  I  met 
Mr.  Giffard  there  and  I  gave  it  to  him. 


76  TRIAL  OF 

Q.  Did  you  expect  to  meet  liim  there  ?     A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Of  what  business  is  Mr.  Ryan  ?     A.  He  is  a  surgeon. 

Q.  Does  he  get  money  by  any  other  business  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  There  is  a  paper  printed  in  the  house  where  he  lives? 
A.  There  is. 

Q.  What  paper  ?     A.  The  Dublin  Journal. 

Q.  Does  not  Mr.  Ryan  superintend  the  publication  of  that  paper  ? 

A.  I  believe  he  does  not. 

Q.  Who  is  the  proprietor  of  that  paper  ?     A.  George  Faulkner. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  he  conducts  that  paper  now  ?  A.  I  am  not  to 
know  any  thing  about  it. 

Q.  But  can  you  not  form  a  belief?  A.  I  cannot  form  a  belief.  I 
do  not  know. 

Q.  Did  you  never  hear  that  Mr.  Giffard  had  some  interest  in  that 
paper  ?     A.  I  did  hear  it. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  it  ?     A.  I  do  not.     I  know  not. 

Q.  What  do  you  believe  ?     A.  I  believe  he  has  not.* 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  it  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Why  do  you  disbelieve  it  ?     A.  I  heard  it  from  several  persons. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  believe  it  ?     A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  do  not  believe  that  he  has  any  connexion  with  that  paper  ? 
A.  I  do  not  believe  it. 

Q.  Have  you  heard  it  contradicted  ?     A.  I  have. 

Q.  By  whom  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  relation  are  you  to  Mr.  Giffard  ?  A.  His  nephew  by 
marriage. 

Q.  And  will  you,  his  nephew,  say  he  has  not  any  interest  in  that 
paper  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Is  not  Mr.  Ryan  a  relation  of  Mr.  Giifard  ?     A.  He  is. 

Q.  What  relation  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Who  pays  the  rent  of  the  house  where  Mr.  Ryan  lives  ?  A. 
I  do  not  know. 

This  witness  retired,  and  then  the  paperf  produced  by  Mr.  Lyster 

*  This  paper  (the  Dublin  Journal)  was  originally  established  by  Mr.  George 
Faulkner,  one  of  the  aldermen  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  and  was  ably  conducted  by 
him  for  upwards  of  fifty  years.  His  house  was  the  rendezvous  of  the  leading 
parliamentary,  literary,  and  political  men  of  his  day.  He  associated  with  persons 
of  the  highest  rank,  and  was  in  the  habit  of  entertaining  them,  it  is  said,  in  a  style 
of  splendour.  From  the  period  of  his  death,  his  paper  gradually  declined  in  spirit 
and  integrity  till  its  doom  was  fixed,  where  its  fanatical  career  commenced  on  its 
coming  into  the  hands  of  one  of  the  most  illiterate  and  illiberal  men,  that  ever 
became  ambitious  of  conducting  a  public  journal.  This  person,  Mr.  John 
Giffard,  better  known  by  the  complimentary  soubriquet  of  the  "  dog  in  office," 
was  brought  up  in  the  Blue  Coat  Hospital.  He  was  taken  by  the  hand,  by  a 
person  of  the  name  of  Thwaites,  a  brewer,  and  was  brought  up  to  the  business  of 
an  apothecary.  He  married  a  young  woman  in  humble  life  in  the  county  of 
Wexford,  and  set  up  as  an  apothecary  in  the  town  of  Wexford ;  but  got  mal- 
treated in  a  brawl  by  a  man  of  the  name  of  Miller,  and  removed  to  Dublin  where 
he  set  up  in  the  business  of  an  apothecary  in  Fishamble  street,  in  1771-  Just 
previous  to  the  trial  of  Hamilton  Rowan,  in  1794,  for  a  seditious  libel,  it  was 
found  necessary  to  have  a  jury  which  could  be  relied  upon  for  a  conviction, 

and  a  sheriff  that  could  be  trusted  in  such  an  emergency Mr.  Giifard  was  made 

sheriff' some  mouths  previous  to  the  trial.  Madden's  United  Irishmen,  vol.  2,  1st 
series,  p.  85. 

f  See  the  paper  at  large  in  the  information. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  77 

was  read — upon  which  the  case  for  prosecution  was  rested. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice,  asked  the  counsel  for  the  defendant 
whether  they  wished  to  have  the  information  i*ead,  in  order  to  com- 
pare it  with  the  publication. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — We  have  instructions  not  to  take  any  captious 
objections,  and  therefore  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  accept  of  the 
offer  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — A  good  reason  why,  Mr.  Curran ;  there 
is  no  error  in  the  record. 

Evidence  for  the  Defendant. — Francis  Blake,  Esq. — Examined  by 

Mr.  Curran. 

Q.  You  live  in  Galway  ?  A.  I  live  now  in  Dublin,  but  I  did  live 
in  the  county  of  Roscommon. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  gentleman  who  was  examined  here  to-day,  of 
the  name  of  John  Lyster  ?     A.  I  believe  I  do. 

Q.  The  son  of  Thomas  Lyster  of  Grange  ?     A.  I  do  know  him. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  Mr.  Lyster  is  a  person  who  would  deserve 
credit,  in  what  he  would  swear  in  a  court  of  justice  ?  A.  That  is  a 
very  hard  question  to  ansM^er,  for  I  never  had  any  dealing  with  him, 
so  as  to  say  from  my  own  knowledge  whether  he  should  be  believed 
or  not. 

Q.  I  only  ask  your  opinion  ;  is  it  your  opinion  that  he  deserves 
credit  upon  his  oath  ?  Do  you  believe  it  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  he  is : 
I  might  hesitate. 

Q.  Can  you  form  an  opinion  ?  A.  I  have  made  all  the  answer  I 
can — I  cannot  say  that  he  does  not  deserve  credit — at  the  same  time 
I  might  have  doubts. 

Lord  Clonmel He  only  says  he  might  hesitate — he  has  doubts. 

Mr.  John  Smith. — Examined  by  the  Recorder. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  Lyster  ?  A.  I  have  seen  him,  I  have  had 
no  acquaintance  with  him. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  him  examined  as  a  witness  ?     A.  I  liave. 

Q.  Where?     A.  At  Galway  siunmer  assizes,  1791. 

Q.  Was  he  the  son  of  Thomas  Lyster  of  Grange  ?  A.  I  believe 
he  was. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  on  the  table  to-day  ?  A.  I  think  I  did 
while  I  was  standing  upon  the  steps  of  the  Exchequer. 

Q.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  he  is  a  person  to  be  believed  upon  his 
oath  in  a  court  of  justice?  A.  I  cannot  form  a  general  opinion, 
with  regard  to  the  matter  upon  which  he  was  examined  to-day :  from 
what  I  know  of  him  I  would  give  very  little  credit  to  him. 

Q.  Wliat  is  his  general  character  ? 

IVIr.  Attorney-General I  object  to  that  question. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — You  are  a  man  of'  business  ;  upon  your  oath, 
do  you  know  enough  of  this  man  to  say  whether  you  think  he  ought 
to  be  believed  upon  his  oath  ?  A.  I  do  not ;  for  I  know  nothing  of 
him,  but  what  I  saw  at  the  trial  in  Galway. 


78  TRIAL   OF 

Cross-examined  by  Mi-.  Attorney-General, 

Q.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  United  Irishmen  ?  A.  I  really  am 
not. 

Mrs.  Mary  Hatchell Examined  by  Mr.  Fletcher. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  John  Lyster,  son  of  Thomas  Lyster  of 
Grange  ?     A.  I  knoAv  Mr.  John  Lyster. 

Q.  Is  he  in  the  army  ?     A.  He  is  an  ensign  of  the  40th. 

Q.  Have  you  known  him  long  ?  A.  I  have  known  him  well  for 
better  than  a  year ;  by  sight  I  know  him  a  long  time. 

Q.  From  all  that  you  know  and  have  heard  of  this  gentleman,  can 
you  form  an  opinion  whether  he  is  a  person  to  be  credited  upon  his 
oath  ?     A.  From  my  opinion  he  is  not. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Solicitor-General. 

Q.  Pray  Madam  where  do  you  live  ?     A.  Upper  Ormond-quay. 

Q.  You  know  a  brother  of  Mr.  Lyster  ?  A.  I  do  well :  it  calls 
painful  remembrances  to  my  mind  by  talking  of  him. 

Q.  "Was  there  any  particular  infidelity  imputed  to  this  gentleman 
or  his  brother?  A.  George  "William  Lyster  was  married  to  a 
daughter  of  ours  (my  husband  is  living.) 

Q.  "Who  is  George  "William  Lyster  ?  The  younger  brother  of  John 
Lyster. 

Q.  Your  first  intercourse  then  originated  from  that  connexion 
between  George  Lyster  and  your  daughter?  A.  Yes:  George 
"William  Fitzgerald  Lyster  married  my  daughter. 

Q.  It  was  not  with  your  consent  ?     A.  It  was  not. 

Q.  You  have  not  been  induced  to  any  painful  necessity  of  breaking 
the  marriage?  A.  John  Lyster  has  found  means  to  take  away  his 
brother  from  his  wife,  insisting  that  he  had  another  wife. 

Q.  (By  the  jury.)  How  do  you  know  that  John  Lyster  is  the 
person  who  inveigled  his  brother  from  your  daughter  ?  A.  His  elder 
brother  told  me  so. 

Q.  (By  the  court.)  Is  that  the  reason  you  do  not  believe  him? 
A.  It  is  one  of  the  reasons. 

Q.  "What  other  reasons  have  you?  A.  Conversations  with  his 
elder  brother. 

[Here  the  case  was  closed  by  the  defendant.] 

A  few  moments  before  the  defendant's  counsel  rose,  a  guard  of 
soldiers  was  brought  into  the  court-house  by  the  sheriff. 

Mr.  Curran,  for  defendant — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  when  I 
consider  the  period  at  which  this  prosecution  is  brought  forward ; 
when  I  behold  the  extraordinary  safeguard  of  armed  soldiers  resorted 
to,  no  doubt  for  the  preservation  of  peace  and  order :  when  I  catch, 
as  I  cannot  but  do,  the  throb  of  public  anxiety  which  beats  from  one 
end  to  the  other  of  this  hall ;  when  I  reflect  on  what  may  be  the  fate 
of  a  man  of  the  most  beloved  personal  character,  of  one  of  the  most 
respected  families  of  our  countiy  ;  himself  the  only  individual  of  that 
fimiily,  I  may  almost  say  of  that  country,  who  can  look  to  that 
possible  fate  with  unconcern,  it  is  in  the  honest  simplicity  of  my  heart 
I  speak,  when  I  say  that  I  never  rose  in  a  court  of  justice  with  so 
much  embarrassment,  as  upon  this  occasion. 

If,  gentlemen,  I  could  entertain  a  hope  of  finding  refuge  for   the 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  KOWAN.  79 

disconcertion  of  my  mind,  in  the  perfect  composure  of  yours ;  if  I 
could  suppose  that  those  awful  vicissitudes  of  human  events,  which  have 
been  stated  or  alluded  to,  could  leave  your  judgments  undisturbed 
and  your  hearts  at  ease,  I  know  I  should  form  a  most  erroneous 
opinion  of  your  character :  I  entertain  no  such  chimerical  hope ;  I 
form  no  such  unworthy  opinion  ;  I  expect  not  that  your  hearts  can  be 
more  at  ease  than  my  own  ;  I  have  no  right  to  expect  it ;  but  I  have 
a  right  to  call  upon  you  in  the  name  of  your  country,  in  the  name  of 
the  living  God,  of  whose  eternal  justice  you  are  now  administering 
that  portion  which  dwells  with  us  on  this  side  of  the  grave,  to 
discharge  your  breasts  as  far  as  you  are  able  of  every  bias  of  prejudice 
or  passion ;  that,  if  my  client  is  guilty  of  the  oiFence  charged  upon 
him,  you  may  give  tranquillity  to  the  public  by  a  firm  verdict  of 
conviction  ;  or  if  he  is  innocent,  by  as  firm  a  verdict  of  acquittal ;  and 
that  you  will  do  this  in  defiance  of  the  paltry  artifices  and  senseless 
clamours  that  have  been  resorted  to  in  order  to  bring  him  to  his  trial 
with  anticipated  conviction.  And,  gentlemen,  I  feel  an  additional 
necessity  of  thus  conjuring  you  to  be  upon  your  guard,  from  the  able 
and  imposing  statement  which  you  have  just  heard  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecution.  I  know  well  the  virtues  and  the  talents  of  the  excellent 
person  who  conducts  that  prosecution  ;  I  know  how  much  he  would 
disdain  to  impose  on  you  by  the  trappings  of  office ;  but  I  also 
know  how  easily  we  mistake  the  lodgment  which  character  and 
eloquence  can  make  upon  our  feelings,  for  those  impressions  that 
reason  and  fact  and  proof  only  ought  to  work  upon  our  understandings. 

Perhaps,  gentlemen,  I  shall  act  not  unwisely  in  waiving  any  further 
observation  of  this  sort,  and  giving  your  minds  an  opportunity  of 
growing  cool  and  resuming  themselves,  by  coming  to  a  calm  and 
uncoloured  statement  of  mere  facts,  premising  only  to  you  that  I 
have  it  in  strictest  injunction  from  my  client,  to  defend  him  upon 
facts  and  evidence  only,  and  to  avail  myself  of  no  technical  artifice 
or  subtility  that  could  withdraw  his  cause  from  the  test  of  that 
enquiry,  which  it  is  your  province  to  exercise,  and  to  which  only  he 
wishes  to  be  indebted  for  an  acquittal. 

In  the  month  of  December  1792,  Mr.  Rowan  was  arrested  on  an 
information,  charging  him  with  the  offence  for  which  he  is  now  on 
his  trial.  He  was  taken  before  an  honourable  personage  now  on  that 
bench,  and  admitted  to  bail. 

He  remained  a  considerable  time  in  this  city,  soliciting  the 
threatened  prosecution,  and  offering  himself  to  a  fair  trial  by  a  jury 
of  his  country  ;  but  it  was  not  then  thought  fit  to  yield  to  that 
solicitation  ;  nor  has  it  now  been  thought  proper  to  prosecute  him  in 
the  ordinary  way,  by  sending  up  a  bill  of  indictment  to  a  grand  jury. 
I  do  not  mean  by  this  to  say  that  informations  ex-officio  are  always 
oppressive  or  unjust;  but  I  cannot  but  observe  to  you,  that  when  a 
petty  jury  is  called  upon  to  try  a  charge  not  previously  found  by  the 
grand  inquest,  and  supported  by  the  naked  assertion  only  of  the 
king's  prosecutor,  that  the  accusation  labours  luider  a  weakness  of 
probability  which  it  is  difficult  to  assist.  If  the  charge  had  no  cause 
of  dreading  the  light — if  it  was  likely  to  find  the  sanction  of  a  grand 
jury,  it  is  not  easy  to  account  why  it  deserted  the  moi'e  usual,  the 
moi'o  popular,  and  the  more  constitutional  mode,  and  prefei'red  to 


80  TRIAL    OF 

come   forward   in   the   ungracious   form   of  an   ex-officio   informa- 


tion * 


If  such  bill  had  been  set  up  and  found,  Mr.  Rowan  would  have 
been  tried  at  the  next  commission;  but  a  speedy  trial  was  not  the 
wish  of  his  prosecutors.  An  information  was  tiled,  and  when  he 
expected  to  be  tried  upon  it,  an  error,  it  seems,  Avas  discovered  in  the 
record.  Mr.  Rowan  offered  to  waive  it,  or  consent  to  any  amendment 
desired.  No — that  proposal  could  not  be  accepted — a  trial  must  have 
followed.  That  information,  therefore,  was  withdrawn,  and  a  new 
one  filed,  that  is  in  fact  a  third  i)rosecution  was  instituted  upon  the 
same  charges.  This  last  was  filed  on  the  8th  day  of  last  July. 
Gentlemen,  these  facts  cannot  fail  of  a  due  impression  upon  you. 
You  will  find  a  material  part  of  your  inquiry  must  be,  whether  Mr. 
Rowan  is  pursued  as  a  criminal  or  hunted  doAvn  as  a  victim.  It  is 
not,  therefoi-e,  by  insinuation  or  circuity,  but  it  is  boldly  and  directly 
that  I  assert  that  oppression  has  been  intended  and  practised  upon  him, 
and  by  those  facts  which  I  have  stated  I  am  warranted  in  the  assertion. 

His  demand,  his  intreaty  to  be  tried  was  refused,  and  why  ?  A  hue 
and  cry  was  to  be  raised  against  him  ;  the  sword  was  to  be  suspended 
over  his  head — some  time  was  necessary  for  the  public  mind  to 
become  heated  by  the  circulation  of  artful  clamours  of  anarchy  and 
rebellion ;  those  same  clamours  which  with  more  probability,  but  not 
more  success,  had  been  circulated  before  through  England  and  Scot- 
land. In  this  country  the  causes  and  the  swiftness  of  their  progress 
were  as  obvious,  as  their  folly  has  since  become  to  every  man  of  the 
smallest  observation ;  I  have  been  stopped  myself,  with,  "  Good  God, 
Sir,  have  you  heard  the  news  ?  No  Sir,  what  ?  Why  one  French 
emissary  was  seen  travelling  through  Connaught  in  a  post-chaise,  and 
scattering  from  the  windows  as  he  passed  little  doses  of  political 
poison,  made  up  in  square  bits  of  paper — another  was  actually  sur- 
prised in  the  fact  of  seducing  our  good  people  from  their  allegiance, 
l)y  discourses  upon  the  indivisibility  of  French  robb(n'y  and  massacre, 
which  he  preached  in  the  French  language  to  a  congregation  of  Irish 
peasants." 

Such  are  the  bugbears  and  spectres  to  be  raised  to  warrant  the 
sacrifice  of  whatever  little  public  spirit  may  remain  amongst  us — but 
time  has  also  detected  the  imposture  of  these  Cock-lane  apparitions, 
and  you  cannot  now,  with  your  eyes  open,  give  a  verdict  without 
asking  your  consciences  this  question  ;  is  tliis  a  fair  and  honest  pro- 
secution ?  Is  it  brouglit  forward  with  the  single  view  of  vindicating 
public  justice,  and  promoting  public  good  ?  And  here  let  me  remind 
you  that  you  are  not  convened  to  try  the  guilt  of  a  libel,  afifecting  the 
personal  character  of  any  private  man ;  I  know  no  case  in  which  a 
jury  ought  to  be  more  severe  than  where  personal  calumny  is  conveyed 
through  a  vehicle,  which  ought  to  be  consecrated  to  public  informa- 
tion ;  neither,  on  tlie  other  hand,  can  I  conceive  any  case  in  which 
the  firmness  and  the  caution  of  a  jury  should  be  moi*e  exerted,  than 
Avhen  a  subject  is  prosecuted  for  a  libel  on  the  state.  The  peculiarity 
of  the  British  constitution,  (to  which  in  its  fullest  extent  we  have 
an   undoubted    right,  however  distant  we  may  be  from  the  actual 

*  See  Case  of  Sir  Wm.  Williams,  13  Howell's  St.  Tr.  p.  I3G9;  Home's  Case, 
'2U  Howell's  St.  Tr.  pp.  677,  G92. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  81 

enjoyment)  and  in  which  it  surpasses  every  known  government  in 
Europe,  is  this ;  that  its  only  professed  object  is  the  general  good,  and 
its  only  foundation  the  general  will ;  hence  the  people  have  a  I'ight 
acknowledged  from  time  immemorial,  fortified  by  a  pile  of  statutes, 
and  authenticated  by  a  i-evolution  which  speaks  louder  than  them  all, 
to  see  whether  abuses  have  been  committed,  and  whether  their  proper- 
ties and  their  liberties  have  been  attended  to  as  they  ought  to  be.  This 
is  a  kind  of  subject  which  I  feel  myself  overawed  when  I  approach ; 
there  are  certain  fundamental  principles  which  nothing  but  necessity 
should  expose  to  public  examination  ;  they  are  pillars  the  depth  of 
whose  foundation  you  cannot  explore  without  endangering  their 
strength ;  but  let  it  be  recollected  that  the  discussion  of  such  topics 
should  not  be  condemned  in  me,  nor  visited  upon  my  client.  The 
blame,  if  any  there  be,  should  rest  only  with  those  who  have  forced 
them  into  discussion.  I  say,  therefore,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to 
keep  an  eternal  watch  upon  the  conduct  of  their  rulers  ;  and  in  order 
to  that,  the  freedom  of  the  press  has  been  cherished  by  the  law  of 
England.  In  private  defamation  let  it  never  be  tolerated;  in  wicked 
and  wanton  aspersion  upon  a  good  and  honest  administration  let  it  never 
be  supported,  not  that  a  good  government  can  be  exposed  to  danger 
by  groundless  accusation,  but  because  a  bad  government  is  sure  to 
find  in  the  detected  falsehood  of  a  licentious  press  a  security  and  a  credit, 
which  it  could  never  otherwise  obtain.  I  said  a  good  government 
cannot  be  endangered  ;  I  say  so  again,  for  whether  it  be  good  or  bad 
can  never  depend  upon  assertion,  the  question  is  decided  by  simple 
inspection  :  to  try  the  tree  look  at  its  fruit ;  to  judge  of  the  government 
look  at  the  people  ;  what  is  the  fruit  of  good  government  ?  The 
virtue  and  happiness  of  the  people  ;  do  four  millions  of  people  in  this 
country  gather  those  fruits  from  that  government  to  whose  injured 
purity,  to  whose  spotless  virtue  and  violated  honour,  this  seditious  and 
atrocious  libeller  is  to  be  immolated  upon  the  altar  of  the  constitu- 
tion ?  To  you,  gentlemen  of  that  jury,  who  are  bound  by  the  most 
sacred  obligation  to  your  country  and  your  God,  to  speak  nothing 
but  the  truth,  I  put  the  question — do  they  gather  those  fruits  ?  are 
they  orderly,  industrious,  religious  and  contented  ?  do  you  find  them 
free  from  bigotry  and  ignorance,  those  inseparable  concomitants  of 
systematic  oppression  ?  or  to  try  them  by  a  test  as  unerring  as  any  of 
the  former,  are  they  united  ?  The  period  has  now  elapsed  in  which 
considerations  of  this  extent  would  have  been  deemed  improper  to  a 
jury;  happily  for  these  countries,  the  legislature  for  each  has  lately 
changed,  or,  perhaps  to  speak  more  properly,  revived  and  restored 
the  law  respecting  trials  of  this  kind.  For  the  space  of  thirty  or  forty 
years  a  usage  had  prevailed  in  Westminister  Hall,  by  which  the 
judges  assumed  to  themselves  the  decision  of  the  question,  whether 
libel  or  not ;  but  the  learned  counsel  for  the  prosecution  are  now 
obliged  to  admit  that  this  is  a  question  for  the  jury  only  to  decide. 
You  will  naturally  listen  with  respect  to  the  opinion  of  the  court,  but 
you  will  receive  it  as  matter  of  advice,  not  as  matter  of  law ;  and  you 
will  give  it  credit  not  from  any  adventitious  circumstances  of  autho- 
rity, but  merely  so  far  as  it  meets  the  concurrence  of  your  own 
understandings. 

Give  me  leave  now  to  state  to  you  the  charge,  as  it  stands  upon  the 

G 


82  TRIAL  OF 

record: — It  is  that  Mr.  Rowan  "being  a  person  of  a  wicked  and 
turbulent  disposition,  and  maliciously  designing  and  intending  to  excite 
and  diffuse  amongst  the  subjects  of  this  realm  of  Ireland  discontents, 
jealousies  and  suspicions  of  our  Lord  the  King  and  his  government, 
and  disaffection  and  disloyalty  to  the  person  and  government  of  our 
said  Lord  the  King,  and  to  raise  very  dangerous  seditions  and 
tumults  within  this  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  to  draw  the  government 
of  this  kingdom  into  great  scandal,  infamy  and  disgrace,  and  to  incite 
the  subjects  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  to  attempt,  by  force  and 
violence  and  with  arms,  to  make  alterations  in  the  government,  state 
and  constitution  of  this  kingdom,  and  to  incite  his  Majesty's  said 
subjects  to  tumult  and  anarchy,  and  to  overturn  the  established 
constitution  of  this  kingdom,  and  to  overawe  and  intimidate  the 
legislature  of  this  kingdom  by  an  armed  force ;"  did  "  maliciously 
and  seditiously"  publish  the  paper  in  question. 

Gentlemen,  without  any  observation  of  mine,  you  must  see  that 
this  information  contains  a  direct  charge  upon  Mr.  Rowan  ;  namely, 
that  he  did,  Avith  the  intents  set  forth  in  the  information,  publish  this 
paper ;  so  that  here  you  have  in  fact  two  or  three  questions  for  your 
decision  :  first,  the  matter  of  fact  of  the  publication  :  namely,  did  Mr. 
Rowan  publish  that  paper  ?  If  Mr.  Rowan  did  not  in  fact  publish  that 
paper,  you  have  no  longer  any  question  on  which  to  employ  your 
minds.  If  you  think  that  he  was  in  fact  the  publisher,  then  and  not 
till  then  arises  the  great  and  important  subject  to  which  your 
judgments  must  be  directed.  And  that  conies  shortly  and  simply  to 
this,  is  the  paper  a  libel  ?  and  did  he  publish  it  with  the  intent 
charged  in  the  information  ?  But  whatever  you  may  think  of  the 
abstract  question  ;  whether  the  paper  be  libellous  or  not,  and  of  which 
paper  it  has  not  even  been  insinuated  that  he  is  the  author,  there  can 
be  no  ground  for  a  verdict  against  him,  unless  you  also  are  pei'suaded 
that  what  he  did  was  done  with  a  criminal  design.  I  wish,  gentlemen, 
to  simplify  and  not  to  perplex ;  I  therefore  say  again,  if  these  three 
circumstances  conspire,  that  he  published  it,  that  it  was  a  libel,  and 
that  it  was  published  with  the  purposes  alledged  in  the  informotion, 
you  ought  unquestionably  to  find  him  guilty ;  if  on  the  other  hand, 
you  do  not  find  that  all  these  circumstances  concurred  ;  if  you  cannot 
upon  your  oaths  say  that  he  published  it ;  if  it  be  not  in  your  opinion 
a  libel,  and  if  he  did  not  publish  it  with  the  intention  alledged :  I  say 
upon  the  failure  of  any  one  of  these  points,  my  client  is  intitled,  in 
justice,  and  upon  your  oaths,  to  a  verdict  of  acquittal. 

Gentlemen,  Mr.  Attorney- General  has  thought  proper  to  direct 
your  attention  to  the  state  and  circumstances  of  public  affairs  at  the 
time  of  this  transaction ;  let  me  also  make  a  few  retrospective 
observations  on  a  period,  at  which  he  has  but  slightly  glanced ;  I 
speak  of  the  events  which  took  place  before  the  close  of  the  American 
war.  You  know  gentlemen  that  France  had  espoused  the  cause 
of  America,  and  we  became  thereby  engaged  in  a  war  with  that 
nation.  Heu  nescia  mens  hominum  futuri  ?  Little  did  that  ill- 
fated  monarch  know  that  he  was  forming  the  first  causes  of 
those  disastrous  events,  that  were  to  end  in  the  subversion  of 
the  throne,  in  the  slaughter  of  his  family,  and  the  deluging  of  his 
country  with  the  blood  of  his  people.     You  cannot   but  remember 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  83 

that  at  a  time,  when  we  had  scarcely  a  reguhir  soldier  for  our  defence ; 
when  the  old  and  young  were  alarmed  and  terrified  Avith  the  appre- 
hension of  descent  upon  our  coasts;  that  Providence  seemed  to  have 
worked  a  sort  of  miracle  in  our  favour.  You  saw  a  band  of  armed 
men  come  forth  at  the  great  call  of  natui'e,  of  honour,  and  their  coun- 
try. You  saw  men  of  the  greatest  wealth  and  rank ;  you  saw  every 
class  of  the  community  give  up  its  members,  and  send  them  armed 
into  the  field,  to  protect  the  public  and  private  tranquillity  of  Ireland. 
It  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  turn  back  to  that  period,  without 
reviving  those  sentiments  of  tenderness  and  gratitude,  which  then 
beat  in  the  public  bosom  :  to  recollect  amidst  what  applause,  what 
tears,  what  prayers,  what  benedictions,  they  walked  forth  amongst 
spectators,  agitated  by  the  mingled  sensations  of  terror  and  reliance, 
of  danger  and  protection ;  imploring  the  blessings  of  Heaven  upon 
their  heads,  and  its  conquest  upon  their  swords.  The  illustrious  and 
adored,  and  abused  body  of  men  stood  forward  and  assumed  the  title, 
which,  I  trust,  the  ingratitude  of  their  country  will  never  blot  from 
its  history,  "  the  Volunteers  of  Ireland." 

Give  me  leave  now,  with  great  respect,  to  put  one  question  to  you : 
Do  you  think  the  assembling  of  that  glorious  band  of  patriots  was  an 
insurrection  ?  do  you  think  the  invitation  to  that  assembling  would 
have  been  sedition  ?  They  come  under  no  commision  but  the  call  of 
their  country ;  unauthorised  and  unsanctioned  except  by  public 
emergency  and  public  danger.  I  ask  was  that  meeting  insurrection 
or  not  ?  I  put  another  question :  If  any  man  then  had  published  a 
call  on  that  body,  and  stated  that  war  was  declared  against  the  state ; 
that  the  regular  troops  were  withdrawn ;  that  our  coasts  were 
hovered  round  by  the  ships  of  the  enemy ;  that  the  moment  was 
approaching  when  the  unprotected  feebleness  of  age  and  sex — when 
the  sanctity  of  habitation  would  be  disregarded  and  prophaned  by 
the  brutal  ferocity  of  a  rude  invader ;  if  any  man  had  then  said 
to  them  "leave  your  industr)^  for  a  while,  that  you  may  return  to 
it  again,  and  come  forth  in  arms  for  the  public  defence " — I  put 
the  question  boldly  to  you  gentlemen — it  is  not  the  case  of  the 
Volunteers  of  that  day ;  it  is  the  case  of  my  client,  at  this  hour, 
which  I  put  to  you — would  that  call  have  then  been  pronounced  in 
a  court  of  justice,  or  by  a  jury  on  their  oaths,  a  .criminal  and 
seditious  invitation  to  insurrection  ?  K  it  would  not  have  been  so  then, 
upon  what  principle  can  it  be  so  now — what  is  the  force  and 
perfection  of  the  law  ?  It  is  the  permanency  of  the  law ;  it  is  that 
whenever  the  fact  is  the  same,  the  law  is  also  the  same ;  it  is  that  the 
law  remains  a  written,  monumented  and  recorded  letter  to  pronounce 
the  same  decision,  upon  the  same  facts  whenever  they  shall  arise.  I 
will  not  affect  to  conceal  it :  you  know  there  has  been  an  artful, 
ungrateful,  and  blasphemous  clamour  raised  against  these  illustrious 
characters,  the  saviours  of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland. 

Having  mentioned  this,  let  me  read  a  few  words  of  the  paper  alleged 
to  be  criminal :  "  You  first  took  up  arms  to  protect  your  country 
from  foreign  enemies  and  from  domestic  disturbance.  For  the  same 
purposes  it  now  becomes  necessary  that  you  should  resume  them." 
I  should  be  the  last  in  the  world  to  impute  any  want  of  candour  to 
the  rijiht  honourable  gentleman,  who  has  stated  the  case  on  behalf  of 


84  TRIAL   OF 

the  prosecution :  but  he  has  certainly  fallen  into  a  mistake,  which,  if 
not  explained,  might  be  highly  injurious  to  my  client.  He  supposed 
that  this  publication  was  not  addressed  to  those  ancient  Volunteers, 
but  to  new  combinations  of  them,  formed  upon  new  principles,  and 
actuated  by  different  motives.  You  have  the  words  to  which  this 
construction  is  imputed  upon  the  recoi'd ;  the  meaning  of  his  mind  can 
be  collected  only  from  those  words  which  he  has  made  use  of  to 
convey  it.  The  guilt  imputable  to  him  can  only' be  inferred  from  the 
meaning  ascribable  to  those  words.  Let  his  meaning  then  be  fairly 
collected  by  resorting  to  them.  Is  there  a  foundation  to  suppose  that 
this  address  was  directed  to  any  such  body  of  men,  as  has  been 
called  a  banditti,  with  what  justice  it  is  unnecessary  to  inquire,  and 
not  to  the  old  Volunteers  ?  As  the  sneer  at  the  words  Citizen 
Soldiers,  I  should  feel  that  I  was  treating  a  veiy  respected  friend 
with  an  insidious  and  unmei'ited  unkindness,  if  I  aifected  to  expose  it 
by  any  gravity  of  refutation.  I  may,  however,  be  permitted  to 
observe,  that  those  who  are  supposed  to  have  disgraced  this  expression 
by  adopting  it,  have  taken  it  from  the  idea  of  the  British  constitution, 
"  that  no  man  in  becoming  a  soldier  ceases  to  be  a  citizen."  Would 
to  God,  all  enemies  as  they  are,  that  that  unfortunate  people  had 
borrowed  more  from  that  sacred  source  of  liberty  and  virtue  ;  and 
would  to  God,  for  the  sake  of  humanity,  that  they  had  preserved  even 
the  little  they  did  borrow.  J£  even  there  could  be  an  objection  to 
that  appellation,  it  must  have  been  strongest  when  it  was  first 
assumed.*  To  that  period  the  writer  manifestly  alludes ;  he  addresses 
"  those  who  first  took  up  ai'ms :"  you  first  took  up  arms  to  protect 
your  country  from  foreign  enemies  and  from  domestic  disturbance, 
For  the  same  purposes  it  now  becomes  necessary  that  you  should 
resume  them.  Is  this  applicable  to  those  who  had  never  taken  up 
arms  before?  "A  proclamation,"  says  this  paper,  "has  been  issued 
in  England  for  embodying  the  militia,  and  a  proclamation  has  been 
issued  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant,  and  council  in  Ireland,  for  repressing 
all  seditious  associations.  In  consequence  of  both  these  proclamations, 
it  is  reasonable  to  apprehend  danger  from  abroad,  and  danger  at  home." 
God  help  us,  from  the  situation  of  Europe  at  that  time,  we  were  threat- 
ened with  too  probable  danger  from  abroad,  and  I  am  afraid  it  was  not 
without  foundation  we  were  told  of  our  having  something  to  dread 
at  home.  I  find  much  abuse  has  been  lavished  on  the  disrespect 
with  which  the  proclamation  is  treated,  in  that  pai*t  of  the  paper 
alleged  to  be  a  libel.  To  that  my  answer  for  my  client  is  short ;  I  do 
conceive  it  competent  to  a  British  subject — if  he  thinks  that  a  pro- 
clamation has  issued  for  the  purpose  of  raising  false  terrors,  I  hold  it 
to  be  not  only  the  privilege,  but  the  duty  of  a  citizen,  to  set  his 
countrymen  right,  with  respect  to  such  misrepresented  danger  ;  and 
until  a  proclamation,  in  this  country,  shall  have  the  force  of  law,  the 
reason  and  grounds  of  it  are  surely  at  least  questionable  by  the  people. 
Nay,  I  will  go  farther,  if  an  actual  law  had  passed  receiving  the 
sanction  of  the  three  estates,  if  it  be  exceptionable  in  any  matter,  it 

•  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  of  reading  the  resolutions  and  addresses  of  the 
old  Volunteers,  at  and  prior  to  17H3,  will  find  the  terms  Citizen  Soldiers,  and 
Citizen  Soldiei-y,  to  have  been  no  uncommon  appellations  to  that  body. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  85 

is  warrantable  to  any  man  in  the  community  to  state,  in  a  becoming 
manner,  his  ideas  upon  it.  And  I  should  be  at  a  loss  to  know,  if  the 
positive  laws  of  Great  Britain  are  thus  questionable,  upon  what 
ground  the  proclamation  of  an  Irish  government  should  not  be  open 
to  the  animadversion  of  Irish  subjects. 

"  Whatever  be  the  motive,  or  from  whatever  quarter  it  arises," 
says  this  paper,  "  alarm  has  arisen."  Gentlemen,  do  you  not  know 
that  to  be  the  fact  ?  It  has  been  stated  by  the  Attorney- General,  and 
most  truly,  that  the  most  gloomy  apprehensions  were  entertained  by 
the  whole  country.  "  You  Volunteers  of  Ireland  are  therefore 
summoned  to  arms  at  the  instance  of  government,  as  well  as  by 
the  responsibility  attached  to  your  character,  and  the  permanent 
obligations  of  your  institution."  I  am  free  to  confess  if  any  man 
assuming  the  liberty  of  a  British  subject,  to  question  public  topics, 
should  under  the  mask  of  that  privilege  publish  a  proclamation 
inviting  the  profligate  and  seditious,  those  in  want  and  those  in 
despair  to  rise  up  in  arms  to  overawe  the  legislature,  to  rob  us  of 
whatever  portion  of  the  blessings  of  a  free  government  we  possess ; 
I  know  of  no  offence  involving  greater  enormity.  But  that,  gentlemen, 
is  the  question  you  are  to  try.  If  my  client  acted  with  an  honest 
mind  and  fair  intention,  and  having,  as  he  believed,  the  authority  of 
government  to  support  him  in  the  idea  that  danger  was  to  be  appre- 
hended, did  apply  to  that  body  of  so  known  and  so  revered  character, 
calling  upon  them  by  their  former  honour,  the  principle  of  their 
glorious  institution,  and  the  great  stake  they  possessed  in  their 
country.  If  he  interposed  not  upon  a  fictitious  pretext,  but  a  real 
belief  of  actual  and  imminent  danger,  and  that  their  arming  at  that 
critical  moment  was  necessary  to  the  safety  of  tlieir  country ;  his 
intention  was  not  only  innocent,  but  highly  meritorious.  It  is  a 
question,  gentlemen,  upon  which  you  only  can  decide ;  it  is  for  you 
to  say  Avhether  it  was  criminal  in  the  defendant  to  be  so  misled,  and 
whether  lie  is  to  fall  a  sacrifice  to  the  prosecution  of  that  government 
by  Avhich  he  was  so  deceived.  I  say  again,  gentlemen,  you  can  look 
only  to  his  OAvn  words  as  the  interpreter  of  his  meaning ;  and  to  the 
state  and  circumstances  of  his  country,  as  he  was  made  to  believe 
them,  as  the  clue  to  his  intention.  The  case  then,  gentlemen,  is 
shortly  and  simply  this  ;  a  man  of  the  first  family  and  fortune,  and 
character  and  propei'ty  among  you,  reads  a  proclamation  stating  the 
country  to  be  in  danger  from  abroad  and  at  home,  and  thus  alarmed — 
thus  upon  authority  of  the  prosecutor,  alarmed,  applies  to  that  august 
body,  before  whose  awful  presence  sedition  must  vanish,  and  insur- 
rection disappear.  You  must  surrender,  I  hesitate  not  to  say  it,  your 
oaths  to  unfounded  assertion,  if  you  can  submit  to  say  that  such  an 
act,  of  such  a  man,  so  warranted,  is  a  wicked  and  seditious  libel.  If 
he  was  a  dupe,  let  me  ask  you,  who  was  the  imposter  ?  I  blush  and 
I  shrink  with  shame  and  detestation  from  that  meanness  of  dupery 
and  servile  complaisance,  which  could  make  that  dupe  a  victim  to^the 
accusation  of  that  imposter. 

You  perceive,  gentlemen,  that  I  am  going  into  the  merits  of  this 
publication,  before  I  apply  myself  to  the  question  which  is  first  in 
order  of  time,  namely,  whether  the  publication,  in  point  of  fact,  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  Mr,  Rowan  or  not.     I  have  been  unintentionally  led 


86  TRIAL    OF 

into  tills  violation  of  order.  I  should  effect  no  purpose  of  either 
brevity  or  clearness,  by  returning  to  the  more  methodical  course  of 
observation.  I  have  been  naturally  drawn  from  it  by  the  superior 
importance  of  the  topic  I  am  upon,  namely,  the  merit  of  the  publication 
in  question. 

This  publication,  if  ascribable  at  all  to  Mr.  Rowan,  contains  four 
distinct  subjects ;  the  first  the  invitation  to  the  Volunteers  to  arm ; 
upon  that  I  have  already  observed  ;  but  those  that  remain  are  surely 
of  much  importance,  and  no  doubt  are  prosecuted  as  equally  criminal. 
The  paper  next  states  the  necessity  of  a  reform  in  parliament ;  it 
states,  thirdly,  the  necessity  of  an  emancipation  of  the  Catholic 
inhabitants  of  Ireland ;  and  as  necessary  to  the  achievement  of  all 
these  objects,  does,  fourthly,  state  the  necessity  of  a  general  delegated 
convention  of  the  people. 

It  has  been  alledged  that  Mr.  Rowan  intended  by  his  publication 
to  excite  the  subjects  of  this  country  to  effect  an  alteration  in  the 
form  of  your  constitution.  And  here,  gentlemen,  perhaps,  you  may 
not  be  unwilling  to  follow  a  little  farther  than  Mr.  Attorney- General 
has  done,  the  idea  of  a  late  prosecution  in  Great  Britain  upon  the 
subject  of  a  public  libel.  It  is  with  peculiar  fondness  I  look  to  that 
country  for  solid  principles  of  constitutional  liberty  and  judicial 
example.  You  have  been  pressed  in  no  small  degree  with  the 
manner  in  which  this  publication  marks  the  different  orders  of  our 
constitution,  and  comments  upon  them.  Let  me  shew  you  what 
boldness  of  animadversion  on  such  topics  is  thought  justifiable  in  the 
British  nation,  and  by  a  British  jury.  I  have  in  my  hand  the  report 
of  the  trial  of  the  printers  of  the  Morning  Chronicle.,  for  a  supposed 
libel  against  the  state,  and  of  their  acquittal ;  let  me  read  to  you 
some  passages  fi'om  that  publication,  which  a  jury  of  Englishmen 
were  in  vain  called  upon  to  brand  with  the  name  of  a  libel. 

"  Claiming  it  as  our  indefeasible  right  to  associate  together,  in  a 
peaceable  and  friendly  manner,  for  the  communication  of  thoughts, 
the  formation  of  opinions,  and  to  promote  the  general  happiness,  we 
think  it  unnecessary  to  offer  any  apology  for  inviting  you  to  join  us 
in  this  manly  and  benevolent  pursuit ;  the  necessity  of  the  inhabitants 
of  every  community  endeavouring  to  procure  a  true  knowledge  of 
their  rights,  their  duties,  and  their  interests,  will  not  be  denied,  except 
by  those  who  are  the  slaves  of  prejudice,  or  the  interested  in  the 
continuation  of  abuses.  As  men  who  wish  to  aspire  to  the  title  of 
freemen,  we  totally  deny  the  wisdom  and  the  humanity  of  the  advice, 
to  approach  the  defects  of  govei'nment  with  "  pious  awe  and  trembling 
solicitude."  What  better  doctrine  could  the  pope  or  the  tyrants  of 
Europe  desire  ?  "We  think,  therefore,  that  the  cause  of  truth  and 
justice  can  never  be  hurt  by  temperate  and  honest  discussions ;  and 
that  cause  which  will  not  bear  such  a  scrutiny,  must  be  systematically 
or  practically  bad.  We  are  sensible  that  those  who  are  not  friends 
to  the  general  good,  have  attempted  to  inflame  the  public  mind  with 
the  cry  of  "  Danger,"  whenever  men  have  associated  for  discussing 
the  pi-inciples  of  government,  and  we  have  little  doubt  but  such 
conduct  will  be  pursued  in  this  place  ;  we  would  therefore  caution 
every  honest  man,  who  has  really  the  welfare  of  the  nation  at  heart, 
to  avoid  being  led  away  by  the  prostituted  clamours  of  those  who  live 


AKCHIBALI)  HAMlLTOiN  llOWAN.  87 

on  the  sources  of  corruption.     We  pity  the  fears  of  the  tiuiorous, 
and  we  ai'e  totally  unconcerned  respecting  the  false  alarms  of  the 

venal." 

-"  We  view  with  concern  the  frequency  of  wars We  are 


persuaded  that  the  interests  of  the  poor  can  never  be  promoted  by 
accession  of  territory,  when  bought  at  the  expense  of  their  labour 
and  blood  ;  and  we  must  say,  in  the  language  of  a  celebrated  author— 
"  We,  who  are  only  the  people,  but  who  pay  for  wars  with  our 
substance  and  our  blood,  will  not  cease  to  tell  kings,"  or  governments, 
"that  to  them  alone  wars  are  profitable;  that  the  true  and  just 
conquests  are  those  which  each  makes  at  home,  by  comforting  the 
peasantiy,  by  promoting  agriculture  and  manufactories;  by  multiplying 
men,  and  the  other  productions  of  nature,  then  it  is  that  kings 
may  call  themselves  the  image  of  God,  whose  will  is  perpetually 
directed  to  the  creation  of  new  beings.  If  they  continue  to  make  us 
fight  and  kill  one  another,  in  uniform,  we  will  continue  to  write  and 
speak,  until  nations  shall  be  cured  of  this  folly." — We  are  certain 
our  present  heavy  burthens  are  owing,  in  a  great  measure  to  cruel 
and  impolitic  wars,  and  therefore  we  will  do  all  on  our  part,  as 
peaceable  citizens  who  have  the  good  of  the  community  at  heart,  to 
enlighten  each  other,  and  protest  against  them. 

"  The  present  state  of  the  representation  of  the  people,  calls  for 
the  particular  attention  of  every  man  who  has  humanity  sufficient  to 
feel  for  the  honour  and  happiness  of  his  country  ;  to  the  defects  and 
corruptions  of  Avhich  we  are  inclined  to  attribute  unnecessary  wars, 
&c.  &c.  We  think  it  a  deplorable  case  when  the  poor  must  support 
a  corruption  which  is  calculated  to  oppress  them  ;  when  the  labourer 
must  give  his  money  to  affiDrd  the  means  of  preventing  him  having  a 
voice  in  its  disposal ;  when  the  lower  classes  may  say — "  We  give 
you  our  money,  for  which  we  have  toiled  and  sweat,  and  Avhich  would 
save  oui'  families  from  cold  and  hunger  ;  but  we  think  it  more  hai'd 
that  there  is  nobody  whom  we  have  delegated,  to  see  that  it  is  not 
imi)roperly  and  wickedly  spent  ;  we   have   none   to   watch  over  our 

interests  ;  the  rich  only  are  represented." 

An  equal  and   uncorrupt  repi-esentation   would,  we  are  per- 


suaded, save  us  from  heavy  expences,  and  deliver  us  from  many 
oppressions,  we  will  therefore  do  our  duty  to  procure  this  reform, 
which  appears  to  us  of  the  utmost  importance." 

"  In  short  we  see  with  the  most  lively  concern,  an  army  of  placemer, 
pensioners,  &c.,  fighting  in  the  cause  of  corruption  and  prejudice,  and 

spreading  the  contagion  far  and  wide." 

We  see  with  equal  sensibility  the  present  outcry  against 


reforms,   and   a  proclamation  (tending   to   cramp   the  liberty  of  the 
press,  and  discredit  the  true  friends  of  the  people)  receiving  the 

support  of  numbers  of  our  countrymen." 

-"  We  see  burdens  multiplied — the   lower  classes   sinking  into 


poverty,  disgrace,   and  excesses,  and  the   means   of  these   shocking 

abuses  increased  for  the  purposes  of  revenue." 

"  We   ask   ourselves — "  Are  we  in   England  ?" — Have   our 


forefathers  fought,  bled,  and  conquered  for  liberty?  And  did  they 
not  think  that  the  fruits  of  their  patriotism  would  be  more  abundant 
in  peace,  plenty,  and  happiness  ?" 


88  TRIAL   OF 

"  Is  the  condition  of  the  poor  never  to  be  improved  ?     Great 

Britain  must  have  arrived  at  the  highest  degree  of  national  happiness 
and  prospei'ity,  and  our  situation  must  be  too  good  to  be  mended,  or 
the  present  outcry  against  refoi'ms  and  improvements  is  inliuman  and 
criminal.  But  we  hope  our  condition  will  be  speedily  improved,  and 
to  obtain  so  desirable  a  good  is  the  object  of  our  present  association  ; 
an  union  founded  on  principles  of  benevolence  and  humanity  ;  dis- 
claiming all  connection  with  riots  and  disorder,  but  firm  in  our  purpose, 
and  warm  in  our  affections  for  liberty. 

"  Lastly — We  invite  the  friends  of  freedom  throughout  Great 
Britain  to  form  similar  societies,  and  to  act  with  unanimity  and 
firmness,  till  the  people  be  too  wise  to  be  imposed  upon  ;  and  their 
influence  in  the  government  be  commensurate  with  their  dignity  and 
importance.  ,,  rpj^^^^  ^^^^  ^^  ^^  ^^.^^  ^^^^  happy." 

Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  language,  which  a  subject  of  Great 
Britain  thinks  himself  warranted  to  hold,  and  upon  such  language 
has  the  corroborating  sanction  of  a  British  jury  been  stamped  by  a 
verdict  of  acquittal.  Such  was  the  honest  and  manly  freedom  of 
publication,  in  a  country  too  where  the  complaint  of  abuses  has  not 
half  the  foundation  it  has  here.  I  said  I  loved  to  look  to  England  for 
principles  of  judicial  example,  I  cannot  but  say  to  you  that  it  depends 
on  your  spirit  whether  I  shall  look  to  it  hereafter  with  sympathy  or 
with  shame.  Be  pleased  now,  gentlemen,  to  consider  whether  the 
statement  of  the  imperfection  in  your  representation,  has  been  made 
with  a  desire  of  inflaming  an  attack  upon  the  public  tranquillity,  or 
with  an  honest  purpose  of  procuring  a  remedy  for  an  actually  existing 
grievance. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  revert  to  the  situation  of  the  times,  and  let 
me  remind  you  that  whatever  observations  of  this  kind  I  am  compelled 
thus  to  make  in  a  court  of  justice,  the  uttering  of  them  in  this  place 
is  not  imputable  to  my  client,  but  the  necessity  of  defence  imposed 
upon  him  by  this  extraordinary  prosecution. 

Gentlemen,  the  representation  of  your  people  is  the  vital  principle 
of  their  political  existence,  without  it  they  are  dead,  or  they  live 
only  to  servitude  ;  without  it  there  are  two  estates  acting  upon  and 
against  the  third,  instead  of  acting  in  co-operation  with  it ;  without 
it,  if  the  people  are  oppressed  by  their  judges,  where  is  the  tribunal 
to  which  their  judges  can  be  amenable  ?  Without  it,  if  they  are 
trampled  upon  and  plundered  by  a  minister,  where  is  the  tribunal  to 
which  the  offender  shall  be  amenable  ?  Without  it,  where  is  the 
ear  to  hear,  or  the  heart  to  feel,  or  the  hand  to  redress  their  sufferings  ? 
Shall  they  be  found,  let  me  ask  you,  in  the  accursed  band  of  imps 
and  minions  that  bask  in  their  disgrace,  and  fatten  upon  their  spoils, 
and  flourish  upon  their  ruin  ?  But  let  me  not  put  this  to  you  as  a 
merely  speculative  question.  It  is  a  plain  question  of  fact  ;  rely 
upon  it,  playsical  man  is  every  where  the  same,  it  is  only  the  various 
operation  of  moral  causes  that  gives  variety  to  the  social  or  individual 
character  and  condition.  How  happens  it  that  modern  slavery  looks 
quietly  at  the  despot,  on  the  very  spot  where  Leonidas  expired  ? 
The  answer  is  easy,  Sparta  has  not  changed  her  climate,  but  she  has 
lost  that  government  which  her  liberty  could  not  survive. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  89 

I  call  you,  therefore,  to  the  plain  question  of  fact ;  this  paper 
recommends  a  reform  in  parliament ;  I  put  that  question  to  your 
consciences,  do  you  think  it  needs  that  reform  ?  I  put  it  boldly  and 
faiidy  to  you,  do  you  think  the  people  of  Ireland  are  represented  as 
they  ought  to  be  ?  Do  you  hesitate  for  an  answer  ?  If  you  do,  let 
me  remind  you  that  until  the  last  year  three  millions  of  your  country- 
men have  by  the  express  letter  of  the  law  been  excluded  from  the 
reality  of  actual,  and  even  from  the  phantom  of  viilual  representation. 
Shall  we  then  be  told  that  this  is  only  the  affirmation  of  a  wicked 
and  seditious  incendiary  ?  If  you  do  not  feel  the  mockery  of  such  a 
charge,  look  at  your  country,  in  what  state  do  you  find  it  ?  Is  it  in 
a  state  of  tranquillity  and  general  satisfaction  ?  These  are  traces  by 
which  good  is  ever  to  be  distinguished  from  bad  government.  Without 
any  very  minute  enquiry  or  speculative  refinement ;  do  you  feel  that 
a  veneration  for  the  law,  a  pious  and  humble  attachment  to  the  con- 
stitution, foi-m  the  political  morality  of  your  people  ?  Do  you  find 
that  comfort  and  competency  among  your  people,  which  are  always 
to  be  found  where  a  government  is  mild  and  moderate ;  where  taxes 
are  imposed  by  a  body  who  have  an  interest  in  treating  the  poorer 
orders  with  compassion,  and  preventing  the  weight  of  taxation  from 
pressing  sore  upon  them  ? 

Gentlemen,  I  mean  not  to  impeach  the  state  of  your  representation, 
I  am  not  saying  that  it  is  defective,  or  that  it  ought  to  be  altered  or 
amended,  nor  is  this  a  place  for  me  to  say,  whether  I  think  that 
three  millions  of  the  inhabitants  of  a  country  whose  whole  number  is 
but  four,  ought  to  be  admitted  into  any  efficient  situation  in  the  state  ; 
it  may  be  said,  and  truly,  these  are  not  questions  for  either  of  us 
directly  to  decide ;  but  you  cannot  refuse  them  some  passing  conside- 
ration at  least,  when  you  remember  that  on  this  subject  the  i-eal 
question  for  your  decision  is,  whether  the  allegation  of  a  defect  in 
your  constitution  is  so  utterly  unfounded  and  false,  that  you  can 
ascribe  it  only  to  the  malice  and  perverseness  of  a  wicked  mind,  and 
not  to  the  innocent  mistake  of  an  ordinary  understanding  ;  whether  it 
cannot  be  mistake ;  whether  it  can  be  only  sedition. 

And  hei-e,  gentlemen,  I  own  I  cannot  but  regret,  that  one  of  our 
countrymen  should  be  criminally  pursued  for  asserting  the  necessity 
of  a  reform,  at  the  moment  Avhen  that  necessity  seems  admitted  by 
the  parliament  itself;  that  this  unhappy  reform  shall  at  the  same 
moment  be  a  subject  of  legislative  discussion,  and  criminal  prosecu- 
tion ;  far  am  I  from  imputing  any  sinister  design  to  the  virtue  or 
wisdom  of  our  government,  but  who  can  avoid  feeling  the  deplorable 
impression  that  must  be  made  on  the  public  mind,  when  the  demand 
for  that  reform  is  answered  by  a  criminal  information  ? 

I  am  the  more  forcibly  impressed  by  this  concern,  when  I  consider 
that  when  this  information  was  first  put  upon  the  file,  the  subject  was 
transiently  mentioned  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Some  circumstances 
retarded  the  progress  of  the  inquiry  there  ;  and  the  progress  of  the 
information  was  equally  retarded  here.  The  first  day  of  this  session 
you  all  know,  that  subject  was  again  brought  forward  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  as  if  they  had  slept  together,  this  prosecution  was 
also  revived  in  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  ;  and  that  before  a  jury, 
taken  from  a  pannel  partly  composed  of  those  very  members  of  par- 


90  TRIAL    OF 

liament,  who,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  must  debate  upon  this 
subject  as  a  measure  of  public  advantage,  which  they  might  have  here 
to  consider  as  a  public  crime.* 

This  paper,  gentlemen,  insists  upon  the  necessity  of  emancipating 
the  Catholics  of  Ireland,   and  that  is  charged  as  part  of  the  libel.     If 
they  had  waited  another  year,  if  they  had   kept  this  prosecution  im- 
pending another  year,  how  much  would  remain  for  a  jury  to   decide 
upon,  I  should  be  at  a  loss  to  discover.     It  seems  as  if  the  progress  of 
public  reformation  was  eating   away  the   ground   of  the  prosecution. 
Since  the  commencement  of  the  prosecution,  this  part  of  the  libel  has 
unluckily  received  the  sanction  of  the  legislature.     In  that  interval 
our  Catholic   bi'ethren  have  obtained  that  admission,  which  it  seems 
it  was  a  libel  to  propose :  in  what  way  to  account  for  this,  I  am  really 
at  a  loss.     Have  any  alarms  been  occasioned  by  the  emancii)ation  of 
our  Catholic  brethren  ?    Has  the  bigotted  malignity  of  any  individuals 
been  crushed  ?     Or  has  the  stability  of  the  government,  or  has  that  of 
the  country  been   weakened  ?     Or  is  one  million  of  subjects  stronger 
than  four  millions  ?     Do  you  think  that  the  benefit  they  received 
should  be  poisoned  by  the  sting  of  vengeance  ?    If  you  think  so,  you 
must  say  to  them,  "  you  have  demanded  emancipation  and  you  have 
got  it ;  but  we  abhor  your  persons,  we  are  outraged  at  your  success  ; 
and  we  will  stigmatise  by  a  criminal  prosecution  the  relief  which  you 
have  obtained  from  the  voice  of  your  country."  I  ask  you,  gentlemen, 
do   you   think    as    honest    men,  anxious  for  the  public  tranquillity, 
conscious  that  there  are  wounds  not  yet  completely  cicatrized,  that  you 
ought  to  speak  this  language  at  this  time,  to  men  who  are  too  much 
disposed  to  think  that  in  this  very  emancipation  they  have  been  saved 
from  their  own  parliament  by  the  humanity  of  their  sovereign  ?     Or 
do  you  wish  to  prepare  them  for  the  revocation  of  these  improvident 
concessions  ?     Do  you  think   it  wise  or  humane  at  this  moment  to 
insult  them,  by  sticking  up  in  a  pillory  the  man  who  dared  to  stand 
forth  their  advocate  ?     I  put  it  to  your  oaths,  do  you  think,  that  a 
blessing  of  that  kind,   that  a  victory  obtained   by  jvistice  over  bigotry 
and  oppression,  should  have  a  stigma  cast  upon  it  by  an  ignominious 
sentence  upon  men  bold  and  honest  enough  to  propose  that  measure  ? 
To  propose  the  redeeming  of  religion  from  the  abuses  of  the  church, 
the  I'eclaiming  of  three  millions   of  men  from  bondage,  and  giving 
liberty  to  all  who  had  a  right  to  demand  it ;  giving,  I  say,  in  the  so 
much  censured  woxxls  of  this  paper,  giving  "  universal  emancipa- 
tion !"     I  speak  in  the  spirit  of  the  British  law,  which  makes  liberty 
commensurate  witli  and  inseparable  from  British  soil ;  which  proclaims 
even  to  the  stranger  and   the   sojourner,  the  moment  he  sets  his  foot 
upon  British  earth,   that  the  ground  on  which  he  treads  is  holy,  and 
consecrated  by  the  Genius  of  universal  emancipation.     No  matter 
in  what  language  his   doom  may  have   been  pronounced — no  matter 
what  complexion  incompatible  with  freedom,  an  Indian  or  an  African 
sun   may  have  burnt  upon   him — no  matter  in  what  disastrous  battle 
his  liberty  may  have  been  cloven  down — no  matter  with  what  solemnities 

*  Among  the  names  on  the  pannel  were  Right  Hon.  J.  Cuffe,  M.P Right  Hon. 

D.  Latouchc,   M.P Sir  W.  G.  Neweomen,   Bart.   M.P .T.  Maxwell,  M.P 

C.  H.  Coote,  M.P — Henry  Bruen,  M.P H.  V.  Brooke,  M.P J.  Reilly,  M.P. 

. — J.  Pomerov,  M.P. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  91 

he  may  have  been  devoted  upon  the  ahar  of  shivery ;  the  first  moment 
he  touches  the  sacred  soil  of  Britain,  the  altar  and  the  god  sink 
together  in  the  dust ;  his  soul  walks  abroad  in  her  own  majesty  ;  his 
body  swells  beyond  the  measure  of  his  chains,  that  burst  from  around 
him,  and  he  stands  redeemed,  i-egenerated,  and  disenthralled,  by  the 
irresistible  Genius  of  universal  emancipation. 

[Here  Mr.  Curran  was  interrupted  by  a  sudden  burst  of  applause 
from  the  court  and  hall,  silence  however  was  restored  after  some 
minutes,  by  the  interposition  of  Lord  Clonmel,  Avho  declared  the  great 
pleasure  he  felt  himself,  at  the  exertion  of  professional  talents,  but 
disapproved  any  intemperate  expression  of  applause  in  a  court  of 
justice.] 

Mr.  Curran  then  proceeded — Gentlemen,  I  am  not  such  a  fool,  as 
to  ascribe  any  effusion  of  this  sort  to  any  merit  of  mine.  It  is  the 
mighty  theme,  and  not  the  inconsiderable  advocate,  that  can  excite 
interest  in  the  hearer  !  What  you  hear  is  but  the  testimony  which 
nature  bears  to  her  own  character  ;  it  is  the  effusion  of  her  gratitude 
to  that  power,  which  stampt  that  character  upon  her. 

And,  gentlemen,  permit  me  to  say,  that  if  my  client  had  occasion 
to  defend  his  cause  by  any  mad  or  drunken  appeals  to  extravagance 
or  licentiousness,  I  trust  in  God  I  stand  in  that  situation,  that  humble 
as  I  am,  he  would  not  have  resorted  to  me  to  be  his  advocate.  I  was 
not  recommended  to  his  choice  by  any  connexion  of  principle  or 
party,  or  even  private  friendship,  and  saying  this  I  cannot  but  add, 
that  I  consider  not  to  be  acquainted  with  such  a  man  as  Mr.  Rowan, 
a  want  of  personal  good  fortune. 

Gentlemen,  upon  this  great  subject  of  reform  and  emancipation, 
there  is  a  latitude  and  boldness  of  remark,  justifiable  in  the  people, 
and  necessary  to  the  defence  of  Mr.  Rowan,  for  which  the  habits  of 
professional  studies,  and  technical  adherence  to  established  forms,  have 
rendered  me  unfit.  It  is  however  my  duty,  standing  here  as  his 
advocate,  to  make  some  few  observations  to  you,  which  I  conceive  to 
be  material. 

Gentlemen,  you  are  sitting  in  a  country,  which  has  a  right  to  the 
British  constitution,  and  which  is  bound  by  an  indissoluble  union 
with  the  British  nation.  If  you  wei'e  now  even  at  liberty  to  debate 
upon  that  subject ;  if  you  even  were  not  by  the '  most  solemn 
compacts,  founded  upon  the  authority  of  your  ancestors  and  of 
yourselves,  bound  to  that  alliance,  and  had  an  election  now  to  make ; 
in  the  present  unhappy  state  of  Europe,  if  you  had  been  heretofore  a 
stranger  to  Great  Britain,  you  would  now  say,  we  will  enter  into 
society  and  union  with  you ; 

Una  salus  ambobus  erit,  commune  periclum  ; 
But  to  accomplish  that  union  let  me  tell  you,  you  must  learn  to 
become  like  the  English  people  ;  it  is  vain  to  say,  you  will  protect 
their  freedom  if  you  abandon  your  own.  The  pillar  whose  base  has 
no  foundation,  can  give  no  support  to  the  dome  under  which  its  head 
is  placed,  and  if  you  profess  to  give  England  that  assistance  which 
you  refuse  to  yourselves,  she  will  laugh  at  your  folly,  and  despise 
your  meanness  and  insincerity.  Let  us  follow  this  a  little  further,  I 
know  you  will  interpret  what  I  say  with  the  candour  in  which  it  is 
spoken.       England  is  marked  by  a  natural  avarice  of  freedom,  which 


92  TRIAL  OF 

she  is  studious  to  engross  and  accumulate,  but  most  unwilling  to 
impart,  whether  from  any  necessity  of  her  policy,  or  from  her  weak- 
ness, or  from  her  pride,  I  will  not  presume  to  say,  but  that  so  is  the 
fact,  you  need  not  look  to  the  East,  or  to  the  West,  you  need  only 
look  to  yourselves. 

In  order  to  confirm  that  observation,  I  would  appeal  to  what  fell 
from  the  learned  counsel  for  the  crown,  that  notwithstanding  the 
alliance  subsisting  for  two  centuries  past,  between  the  two  countries, 
the  date  of  liberty  in  one  goes  no  further  back  than  the  year  1784. 

If  it  required  additional  confirmation,  I  should  state  the  case  of 
the  invaded  American,  and  the  subjugated  Indian,  to  prove  that  the 
policy  of  England  has  ever  been  to  govern  her  connexions  more  as 
colonies,  than  as  allies ;  and  it  must  be  owing  to  the  great  spii'it 
indeed  of  Ireland  if  she  shall  continue  free.  Rely  upon  it  she  will 
ever  have  to  hold  her  course  against  an  adverse  current ;  rely  upon  it 
if  the  popular  spring  does  not  continue  strong  and  elastic,  rely  upon 
it,  a  short  interval  of  debilitated  nerve  and  broken  force  will  send  you 
down  the  stream  again,  and  reconsign  you  to  the  condition  of  a 
province. 

If  such  should  become  the  fate  of  your  constitution,  ask  yourselves 
what  must  be  the  motive  of  your  government  ?  It  is  easier  to  govern 
a  province  by  a  faction,  than  to  govern  a  co-ordinate  country  by 
co-ordinate  means.  I  do  not  say  it  is  now,  but  it  will  be  always 
thought  easiest  by  the  managers  of  the  day,  to  govern  the  Irish 
nation  by  the  agency  of  such  a  faction,  as  long  as  this  country  shall 
be  found  willing  to  let  her  connection  with  Great  Britain  be  preserved 
only  by  her  own  degradation.  In  such  a  precarious  and  wretched 
state  of  things,  if  it  shall  ever  be  found  to  exist,  the  true  friend  of 
L'ish  liberty,  and  British  connexion,  will  see,  that  the  only  means  of 
saving  both  must  be,  as  Lord  Chatham  expi-essed  it,  the  infusion  of 
new  health  and  blood  into  the  constitution.  He  will  see  how  deep  a 
stake  each  country  has  in  the  liberty  of  the  other  ;  he  will  see  what  a 
bulwark  he  adds  to  the  common  cause,  by  giving  England  a 
co-ordinate,  and  co-interested  ally,  instead  of  an  oppressed,  enfeebled 
and  suspected  dependant ;  he  will  see  how  grossly  the  credulity  of 
Britain  is  abused  by  those,  who  make  her  believe  that  her  solid 
interest  is  promoted  by  our  depression ;  he  will  see  the  desperate 
precipice  to  which  she  approaches  by  such  a  conduct,  and  with 
an  animated  and  generous  piety  he  will  labour  to  avert  her  danger. 
But,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  what  is  likely  to  be  his  fate?  The 
interest  of  the  sovereign  must  be  for  ever  the  interest  of  the  people, 
because  his  interest  lives  beyond  his  life,  it  must  live  in  his  fame,  it 
must  live  in  the  tenderness  of  his  solicitude  for  an  unborn  posterity  ; 
it  must  live  in  that  heart-attaching  bond  by  which  millions  of  men 
have  united  the  destinies  of  themselves  and  their  children  with  his, 
and  call  him  by  the  endearing  appellation  of  king  and  father  of  his 
people. 

But  what  can  be  the  interest  of  such  a  government  as  I  have 
described  ?  Not  the  interest  of  the  king,  not  the  interest  of  the 
people,  but  the  sordid  interest  of  the  hour  ;  the  interest  in  deceiving 
the  one,  and  in  oppressing  and  deforming  the  other:  the  interest 
of  unpunished  rapine  and  unmerited  favour :  that  odious  and  abject 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  93 

interest,  that  prompts  them  to  extinguish  public  spirit  in  punishment 
or  in  bribe  ;  and  to  pursue  every  man,  even  to  death,  who  has  sense  to 
see,  and  integrity  and  firmness  enough  to  abhor  and  to  oppose  them. 
What  therefore  I  say,  gentlemen,  will  be  the  state  of  the  man,  -who 
embarks  in  an  enterprise  of  so  much  difficulty  and  danger  ?  I  will 
not  ansAver  it.  Upon  that  hazard  has  my  client  put  everything  that 
can  be  dear  to  man  ; — his  fame,  his  fortune,  his  person,  his  liberty  and 
his  children  ;  but  with  what  event  your  verdict  only  can  answer,  and 
to  that  I  refer  your  country. 

Gentlemen,  there  is  a  fourth  point  remaining.  Says  this  paper, 
"  For  both  these  purposes,  it  appears  necessary  that  provincial 
conventions  should  assemble  preparatory  to  the  convention  of  the 
Protestant  people.  The  delegates  of  the  Catholic  body  are  not  justified 
in  communicating  with  individuals,  or  even  bodies  of  inferior 
authority,  and  therefore  an  assembly  of  a  similar  nature  and  organ- 
ization, is  necessary  to  establish  an  intercourse  of  sentiment,  an 
uniformity  of  conduct,  an  united  cause  and  an  united  nation.  If  a 
convention  on  the  one  part  does  not  soon  follow,  and  is  not  soon 
connected  with  that  on  the  other,  the  common  cause  will  split  into 
the  partial  intei'est ;  the  people  will  relax  into  inattention  and  inert- 
ness ;  the  union  of  afiection  and  exertion  will  dissolve,  and  too 
probably  some  local  insurrection,  instigated  by  the  malignity  of  our 
common  enemy,  may  commit  the  character  and  risque  the  tranquillity 
of  the  island,  which  can  be  obviated  only  by  the  influence  of  an 
assembly  arising  from,  assimilated  with  the  people,  and  whose  spirit 
may  be,  as  it  were,  knit  with  the  soul  of  the  nation,  unless  the  sense 
of  the  Protestant  people  be  on  their  part  as  fairly  collected  and  as 
judiciously  directed,  unless  individual  exertion  consolidates  into  col- 
lective strength,  unless  the  particles  unite  into  mass,  we  may  perhaps 
serve  some  person  or  some  party  for  a  little,  but  the  public  not  at  all ; 
the  nation  is  neither  insolent,  nor  rebellious,  nor  seditious  ;  while  it 
knows  its  rights,  it  is  unwilling  to  manifest  its  powers;  it  would 
rather  supplicate  administration  to  anticipate  revolution  by  well-timed 
reform,  and  to  save  their  country  in  mercy  to  themselves." 

Gentlemen,  it  is  with  something  more  than  common  reverence,  it  is 
with  a  species  of  terror  that  I  am  obliged  to  tread  this  ground.  But 
what  is  the  idea  put  in  the  strongest  point  of  view.  We  are  willing 
not  to  manifest  our  powers,  but  to  supplicate  administration,  to 
anticipate  revolution,  that  the  legislature  may  save  the  country 
in  mercy  to  itself. 

Let  me  suggest  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  there  are  some  circum- 
stances which  have  happened  in  the  history  of  this  country,  that  may 
better  serve  as  a  comment  upon  this  part  of  the  case  than  any  I  can 
make.  I  am  not  bound  to  defend  Mr.  Rowan  as  to  the  truth  or 
wisdom  of  the  opinions  he  may  have  formed.  But  if  he  did  really 
conceive  the  situation  of  the  country  such  as  that  the  not  redressing 
her  grievances  might  lead  to  a  convulsion,  and  of  such  an  opinion 
not  even  Mr.  Rowan  is  answerable  here  for  the  wisdom,  much  less 
shall  I  insinuate  any  idea  of  my  own  upon  so  awful  a  subject,  but  if 
he  did  so  conceive  the  fact  to  be,  and  acted  from  the  fair  and  honest 
suggestion  of  a  mind  anxious  for  the  public  good,  I  must  confess, 
gentlemen,  I  do  not  know  in  what  part  of  the  British  constitution  to 
find  the  principle  of  his  criminality. 


94  TRIAL  OF 

But,  gentlemen,  be  pleased  further  to  consider,  that  he  cannot  be 
understood  to  put  the  fact  on  which  he  argues  on  the  authority  of 
his  assertion.  The  condition  of  Ireland  was  open  to  the  observation 
of  every  other  man  as  to  that  of  Mr.  Rowan ;  what  then  does  this 
part  of  the  publication  amount  to  ?  In  my  mind  simply  to  this :  "the 
nature  of  oppression  in  all  countries  is  such,  that  although  it  may  be 
borne  to  a  certain  degree,  it  cannot  be  borne  beyond  that  degi-ee  ;  you 
find  it  exemplified  in  Great  Britain  ;  you  find  the  people  of  England 
patient  to  a  certain  point,  but  patient  no  longer.  That  infatuated 
monarch,  James  II.,  experienced  this ;  the  time  did  come,  when  the 
measure  of  popular  suffering  and  popular  patience  was  full ;  when 
a  single  drop  was  sufficient  to  make  the  waters  of  bitterness  to 
overflow.  I  think  this  measure  in  Ireland  is  brimful  at  present ; 
I  think  the  state  of  misrepresentation  of  the  people  in  parliament  is 
a  grievance,  I  think  the  utter  exclusion  of  three  millions  of  people  is 
a  grievance  of  that  kind  that  the  people  are  not  likely  long  to  endure, 
and  the  continuation  of  which  may  plunge  the  country  into  that  state 
of  despair  wliich  wrongs  exasperated  by  perseverance  never  fail 
to  produce."  But  to  whom  is  even  this  language  addressed  ?  Not  to 
the  body  of  the  people,  on  whose  temper  and  moderation  if  once 
excited,  perhaps  not  much  confidence  could  be  placed  ;  but  to  that 
authoritative  body  whose  influence  and  power  would  have  restrained 
the  excesses  of  the  irritable  and  tumultuous  ;  and  for  that  purpose 
expressly  does  this  publication  address  the  Volunteers.  "  We  are 
told  that  we  are  in  danger ; — I  call  upon  you,  the  great  constitutional 
saviours  of  Ireland,  defend  the  country  to  which  you  have  given 
political  existence,  and  use  whatever  sanction  your  great  name,  your 
sacred  character,  and  the  weight  you  have  in  the  community,  must 
give  you  to  repress  wicked  designs,  if  any  there  are. 

"  We  feel  ourselves  strong,  the  people  are  always  strong,  the  public 
chains  can  only  be  rivetted  by  the  public  hands  ;  look  to  those 
devoted  regions  of  Southern  despotism,  behold  the  expiring  victim  on 
his  knees,  presenting  the  javelin  reeking  with  his  blood  to  the  fero- 
cious monster  who  returns  it  into  his  heart.  Call  not  that  monster 
the  tyrant,  he  is  no  more  than  the  executioner  of  that  inhuman 
tyranny  which  the  people  practice  upon  themselves,  and  of  wliich  he 
is  only  reserved  to  be  a  later  victim  than  the  wretch  he  has  sent  before. 
Look  to  a  nearer  country,  where  the  sanguinary  characters  are  more 
legible  ;  whence  you  almost  hear  the  groans  of  deatli  and  torture. 
Do  you  ascribe  the  rapine  and  murder  of  France  to  the  few  names 
that  we  are  execrating  here  ?  or  do  you  not  see  that  it  is  the  phrenzy 
of  an  infuriated  multitude  abusing  its  own  strength,  and  practising 
those  hideous  abominations  upon  itself.  Against  the  violence  of  this 
strength  let  your  virtue  and  influence  be  our  safeguard."  What 
criminality,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  can  you  find  in  this?  what  at  any 
time  ?  But  I  ask  you,  peculiarly  at  this  momentous  period,  what 
guilt  can  you  find  in  it  ?  My  client  saw  the  scene  of  horror  and 
blood  which  covers  almost  the  face  of  Europe  :  he  feared  that  causes, 
which  he  thought  similar,  might  produce  similar  effects,  and  he  seeks 
to  avert  those  dangers  by  calling  the  united  virtue  and  tried 
moderation  of  the  country  into  a  state  of  strength  and  vigilance.  Yet 
this  is  the  conduct  which  the  prosecution  of  this  day  seeks  to  punish 


ABCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  95 

and  stigmatize.  And  tliis  is  the  language  for  which  this  paper  is  repro- 
bated to-day,  as  tending  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  people  against  their 
sovereign,  and  inviting  them  to  overturn  the  constitution.  Let  us 
now,  gentlemen,  consider  the  concluding  part  of  this  publication ;  it 
recommends  a  meeting  of  the  people  to  deliberate  on  constitutional 
methods  of  redressing  grievances.  Upon  this  subject  I  am  inclined 
to  suspect  that  I  have  in  my  yovith  taken  up  crude  ideas,  not  founded, 
perhaps,  in  law  ;  but  I  did  imagine  that  when  the  bill  of  rights  re- 
stored the  right  of  petitioning  for  the  redress  of  grievances,  it  was 
understood  the  people  might  boldly  state  among  themselves  that 
grievances  did  exist ;  that  they  might  lawfully  assemble  themselves  in 
such  manner  as  they  might  deem  orderly  and  decorous.  I  thought  I 
had  collected  it  from  the  greatest  luminaries  of  the  law.  The  power 
of  petitioning  seemed  to  me  to  imply  the  right  of  assembling  for  the 
purpose  of  deliberation.  The  law  requiring  a  petition  to  be  pre- 
sented by  a  limited  number,  seemed  to  me  to  admit  that  the  petition 
might  be  prepared  by  any  number  whatever,  provided,  in  doing  so, 
they  did  not  commit  any  breach  or  violation  of  the  public  peace.  I 
know  that  there  has  been  a  law  passed  in  the  Irish  parliament  of  last 
year,  which  may  bring  my  former  opinion  into  a  merited  want  of 
authority.  That  law  declares  that  no  body  of  men  may  delegate  a 
power  to  any  smaller  number,  to  act,  think,  or  to  petition  for  them. 
If  that  law  had  not  passed  I  should  have  thought  that  the  assembling 
by  a  delegated  convention  was  recommended,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
tumult  and  disorder  of  a  promiscuous  assembly  of  the  whole  mass  of 
the  people.  I  should  have  conceived  before  that  act  that  any  law  to 
abridge  the  orderly  appointment  of  the  few  to  consult  for  the  interest 
of  the  many,  and  thus  force  the  many  to  consult  by  themselves  or  not 
at  all,  would  in  fact  be  a  laAv  not  to  restrain  but  to  pi'omote  insurrec- 
tion, but  that  law  has  spoken  and  my  error  must  stand  corrected.  Of 
tliis,  however,  let  me  remind  you,  you  are  to  try  this  part  of  the 
publication  by  what  the  law  was  then,  and  by  what  it  is  now.  How 
was  it  vniderstood  until  last  session  of  parliament  ?  You  had  both  in 
England  and  Ireland,  for  the  last  ten  years,  these  delegated  meetings. 
The  Volunteers  of  Ireland,  in  1782,  met  by  delegation  ;  they  framed 
a  plan  of  parliamentary  reform  ;  they  presented  it  to  the  representative 
wisdom  of  the  nation ;  it  was  not  received,  but  no  man  ever  dreamed 
that  it  was  not  the  undoubted  right  of  the  subject  to  assemble  in  that 
manner.  They  assembled  by  delegation  at  Dungannon,  and  to  sheAv 
the  idea  then  entertained  of  the  legality  of  their  public  conduct,  that 
same  body  of  Volunteers  was  thanked  by  both  houses  of  parliament, 
and  their  delegates  most  graciously  received  at  the  throne.  The  other 
day,  you  had  delegated  representatives  of  the  Catholics  of  Ireland, 
publicly  elected  by  the  members  of  that  persuasion,  and  sitting  in 
convention  in  the  heart  of  your  capital,  carrying  on  an  actual  treaty 
with  the  existing  government,  and  under  the  eye  of  your  own  par- 
liament, which  was  then  assembled ;  you  have  seen  the  delegates 
from  that  convention,  carry  the  complaints  of  their  grievances  to  the 
foot  of  the  throne  ;  from  whence  they  brought  back  to  that  convention, 
the  auspicious  tidings  of  that  redress  which  they  had  been  refused  at 
home. 

Such,  gentlemen,  hav(^  been  the  means   of  popular   communication 


96  TRIAL   OF 

and  discussion,  which  until  the  last  session  have  been  deemed  legal 
in  this  country  ;  as  happily  for  the  sister  kingdom,  they  are  yet  con- 
sidered there. 

I  do  not  complain  of  this  act  as  any  infraction  of  popular  liberty  ; 
I  should  not  think  it  becoming  in  me  to  express  any  complaint  against 
a  law,  when  once  become  such.  I  observe  only,  that  one  mode  of 
popular  deliberation  is  thereby  taken  utterly  away,  and  you  are 
reduced  to  a  situation  in  which  you  never  stood  before.  You  are 
living  in  a  country,  where  the  constitution  is  rightly  stated  to  be 
only  ten  years  old  ;  where  the  people  have  not  the  ordinary  rudiments 
of  education.  It  is  a  melancholy  story,  that  the  lower  orders  of  the 
people  here  have  less  means  of  being  enlightened  than  the  same  class 
of  people  in  any  other  country.  If  there  be  no  means  left  by  which 
public  measures  can  be  canvassed,  what  will  be  the  consequence  ? 
Where  the  press  is  free,  and  discussion  unrestrained,  the  mind  by  the 
collision  of  intercourse,  gets  rid  of  its  own  asperities,  a  sort  of  in- 
sensible perspiration  takes  place,  by  which  those  acrimonies,  which 
would  otherwise  fester  and  inflame,  are  quietly  dissolved  and  dissipated. 
But  now,  if  any  aggregate  assembly  shall  meet,  they  are  censured  ; 
if  a  printer  publishes  their  resolutions  he  is  punished ;  rightly  to  be 
sure  in  both  cases,  for  it  has  been  lately  done.  If  the  people  say,  let 
us  not  create  tumult,  but  meet  in  delegation,  they  cannot  do  it ;  if 
they  are  anxious  to  promote  parliamentary  reform,  in  that  way,  they 
cannot  do  it ;  the  law  of  the  last  session  has  for  the  first  time  declared 
such  meetings  to  be  a  crime.  What  then  remains  ?  Only  the  liberty 
of  the  press,  that  sacred  palladium,  which  no  influence,  no  power,  no 
minister,  no  government,  which  nothing  but  the  depravity,  or  folly, 
or  corruption  of  a  jury,  can  ever  destroy.  And  what  calamity  are 
the  people  saved  from,  by  having  public  communication  left  open  to 
them  ?  I  will  tell  you,  gentlemen,  what  they  are  saved  from,  and 
what  the  government  is  saved  from  ;  I  will  tell  you  also,  to  what 
both  are  exposed  by  shutting  up  that  communication ;  in  one  case 
sedition  speaks  aloud,  and  walks  abroad  ;  the  demagogue  goes  forth, 
the  public  eye  is  upon  him,  he  frets  his  busy  hour  upon  the  stage,  but 
soon  either  weariness,  or  bribe,  or  [)unishment,  or  disappointment 
bears  him  down,  or  drives  him  off,  and  he  appears  no  more ;  in  the 
other  case,  how  does  the  work  of  sedition  go  forward  ?  Night  after 
night  the  mufiied  rebel  steals  forth  in  the  dark,  and  casts  another 
and  another  brand  upon  the  pile,  to  which,  when  the  hour  of  fatal 
maturity  shall  arrive,  he  will  apply  the  flame.  If  you  doubt  of  the 
horrid  consequences  of  suppi'essing  the  effusion  even  of  individual 
discontent,  look  to  those  enslaved  countries  where  the  protection  of 
despotism  is  supposed  to  be  secured  by  such  restraints,  even  the 
person  of  the  despot  there  is  never  in  safety.  Neither  the  fears  of 
the  despot,  nor  the  machinations  of  the  slave  have  any  slumber,  the 
one  anticipating  the  moment  of  peril,  the  other  watching  the  oppor- 
tunity of  aggression.  The  fatal  crisis  is  equally  a  surprise  upon 
both ;  the  decisive  instant  is  precipitated  without  warning,  by  folly 
on  the  one  side  or  by  frenzy  on  the  other,  and  there  is  no  notice  of 
the  treason  till  the  traitor  acts.  In  those  unfortunate  countries  (one 
cannot  read  it  without  horror)  there  are  officers  whose  province  it  is, 
to  have  the  water,  which  is  to  be  drank  by  their  rulers,  sealed  up  in 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  97 

bottles,  lest  some  wretched  miscreant  should  throw  poison  into  the 
draught. 

But,  gentlemen,  if  you  wish  for  a  nearer  and  more  interesting 
example,  you  have  it  in  the  history  of  your  own  revolution  ;  you  have 
it  at  that  memorable  period,  when  the  monarch  found  a  servile 
acquiescence  in  the  ministers  of  his  folly,  Avhen  the  liberty  of  the 
press  was  trodden  under  foot,  when  venal  sheriffs  returned  packed 
juries  to  carry  into  effect  those  fatal  conspiracies  of  the  few  against 
the  many;  when  the  devoted  benches  of  public  justice  were  filled  by 
some  of  those  foundlings  of  fortune,  who,  overwhelmed  in  the  torrent 
of  corruption  at  an  early  period,  lay  at  the  bottom  like  drowned  bodies, 
while  soundness  or  sanity  remained  in  them ;  but  at  length  becoming 
buoyant  by  putrefaction,  they  rose  as  they  rotted,  and  floated  to  the 
surface  of  the  polluted  stream,  where  they  were  drifted  along,  the 
objects  of  terror,  and  contagion  and  abomination. 

In  that  awful  moment  of  a  nation's  travail,  of  the  last  gasp  of 
tyranny,  and  the  first  breath  of  freedom,  how  pregnant  is  the  example  ? 
The  press  extinguished,  the  people  enslaved,  and  the  prince  undone. 

As  the  advocate  of  society,  therefore,  of  peace,  of  domestic  liberty, 
and  the  lasting  union  of  the  two  countries,  I  conjure  you  to  guard  the 
liberty  of  the  press,  that  great  centinel  of  the  state,  that  grand 
detector  of  public  imposture  :  guard  it,  because  when  it  sinks,  there 
sinks  with  it,  in  one  common  grave,  the  libei'ty  of  the  subject  and  the 
security  of  the  crown. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  glad  that  this  question  has  not  been  brought 
forward  earlier;  I  rejoice  for  the  sake  of  the  court,  of  the  jury,  and 
of  the  public  repose,  that  this  question  has  not  been  brought  forward 
till  now.  In  Great  Britain  analagous  circumstances  have  taken  place. 
At  the  commencement  of  that  unfortunate  war  which  has  deluged 
Europe  with  blood,  the  spirit  of  the  English  people  was  tremblingly 
alive  to  the  terror  of  French  principles ;  at  that  moment  of  general 
paroxysm,  to  accuse  was  to  convict.  The  danger  looked  larger  to 
the  public  eye,  from  the  misty  medium  through  which  it  was  surveyed. 
We  measure  inaccessible  heights  by  the  shadows  which  they  project ; 
where  the  lowness  and  the  distance  of  the  light  form  the  length  of 
the  shade. 

There  is  a  sort  of  spring,  and  adventurous  credulity,  which  disdains 
assenting  to  obvious  truths,  and  delights  in  catching  at  the  im- 
probability of  circumstances,  as  its  best  ground  of  faith.  To  what 
other  cause,  gentlemen,  can  you  ascribe  that  in  the  wise,  the  reflecting 
and  the  philosophic  nation  of  Great  Britain,  a  printer  has  been 
gravely  found  guilty  of  a  libel,  for  publishing  those  resolutions,  to 
which  the  present  minister  of  that  kingdom  had  actually  subscribed 
his  name  ?  To  what  other  cause  can  you  ascribe,  what  in  my  mind 
is  still  more  astonishing,  in  such  a  country  as  Scotland,  a  nation  cast 
in  the  happy  medium  between  the  spiritless  acquiescence  of  submissive 
poverty,  and  the  sturdy  credulity  of  pampered  wealth ;  cool  and 
ardent,  adventurous  and  persevering ;  winning  her  eagle  flight  against 
the  blaze  of  every  science,  with  an  eye  that  never  winks,  and  a  wing 
that  never  tires  ;  crowned  as  she  is  with  the  spoils  of  every  art,  and 
decked  with  the  wreath  of  every  muse  ;  from  the  deep  and  scrutinizing 
researches  of  her  Hume,  to  the  sweet  and  simple,  but  not  less  sublime 

H 


98  TRIAL    OF 

and  pathetic  morality  of  her  Burns — how  from  the  bosom  of  a  country- 
like  that,  genius  and  character,  and  talents,  should  be  banished  to  a 
distant  barbarous  soil ;  condemned  to  pine  under  the  horrid  com- 
munion of  vulgar  vice  and  base-born  profligacy,  for  twice  the  period 
that  ordinary  calculation  gives  to  human  life  ?  But  I  will  not  further 
press  any  idea  that  is  painful  to  me,  and  I  am  sure  must  be  painful  to 
you  :  I  will  only  say,  you  have  now  an  example,  of  Avhich  neither 
England  nor  Scotland  had  the  advantage  ;  you  have  the  example  of 
the  panic,  the  infatuation  and  the  contrition  of  both.  It  is  now  for 
you  to  decide  whether  you  will  profit  by  their  experience  of  idle 
panic  and  idle  regret,  or  whether  you  meanly  prefer  to  palliate  a 
servile  imitation  of  their  frailty,  by  a  paltry  affectation  of  their 
repentance.  It  is  now  for  you  to  shew  that  you  are  not  carried  away 
by  the  same  hectic  delusions,  to  acts,  of  which  no  tears  can  wash 
away  the  fatal  consequences,  or  the  indelible  reproach. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  been  warning  you  by  instances  of  public 
intellect  suspended  or  obscured ;  let  me  rather  excite  you  by  the 
example  of  that  intellect  recovered  and  restored.  In  that  case  which 
Mr.  Attorney  General  has  cited  himself,  I  mean  that  of  the  trial  of 
Lambert  in  England,  is  there  a  topic  of  invective  against  constituted 
authorities ;  is  there  a  topic  of  abuse  against  every  department  of 
British  government,  that  you  do  not  find  in  the  most  glowing  and 
unqualified  terms  in  that  publication,  for  which  the  printer  of  it  was 
prosecuted,  and  acquitted  by  an  English  jury  ?  See  too  what  a 
difference  there  is  between  the  case  of  a  man  publishing  his  own 
opinion  of  facts,  thinking  that  he  is  bound  by  duty  to  hazard  the 
promulgation  of  them,  and  without  the  remotest  hope  of  any  personal 
advantage,  and  that  of  a  man  who  makes  publication  his  trade.  And 
saying  this  let  me  not  be  misunderstood  ;  it  is  not  my  province  to 
enter  into  any  abstract  defence  of  the  opinions  of  any  man  upon 
public  subjects.  I  do  not  affirmatively  state  to  you  that  these 
grievances,  which  this  paper  supposes,  do  in  fact  exist ;  yet  I  cannot 
but  say,  that  the  movers  of  this  prosecution  have  forced  that  question 
upon  you.  Their  motives  and  their  merits,  like  those  of  all  accusers, 
are  put  in  issue  before  you ;  and  I  need  not  tell  you  how  strongly 
the  motive  and  merits  of  any  informer  ought  to  influence  the  fate  of 
his  accusation. 

I  agree  most  implicitly  with  Mr.  Attorney  General,  that  nothing 
can  be  more  criminal  than  an  attempt  to  work  a  change  in  the 
Government  by  armed  force ;  and  I  entreat  that  the  court  will  not 
suffer  any  expression  of  mine  to  be  considered  as  giving  encourage- 
ment or  defence  to  any  design  to  excite  disaffection,  to  overawe  or  to 
overturn  the  Government ;  but  I  put  my  client's  case  upon  another 
ground — if  he  was  led  into  an  opinion  of  grievances  where  there  were 
none,  if  he  thought  there  ought  to  be  a  reform  where  none  was 
necessary,  he  is  answerable  only  for  his  intention.  He  can  be 
answerable  to  you  in  the  same  way  only  that  he  is  answerable  to  that 
God  before  whom  the  accuser,  the  accused,  and  the  judge  must  appear 
together,  that  is,  not  for  the  cleai*ness  of  his  understanding,  but  for  the 
purity  of  his  heart. 

Gentlemen,  Mr.  Attorney  General  has  said,  that  Mr.  Rowan  did 
by  this   publication  (supposing  it  to  be  his)  recommend,  under  the 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  UOWAN.  99 

name  of  equality,  a  general  indiscriminate  assumption  of  public  rule 
by  every  tbe  meanest  person  in  the  state.     Low  as  we  are  in  point  of 
public  information,  there  is  not,  I  believe,  any  man,  who  thinks  for  a 
moment,  that  does  not  know,  that  all  which  the  great  body  of  people, 
of  any  country,  can  have  from  any  government,  is  a  fair  encourage- 
ment for  their  industry,  and  protection  for  the  fruits  of  their  labour. 
And  there  is  scarcely  any  man,  I  believe,  who  does  not  know,  that  if 
a  people  could  become  so  silly  as  to  abandon  their  stations  in  society, 
under  pretence  of  governing  themselves,  they  would  become  the  dupes 
and  the  victims  of  their  own  folly.     But  does  this  publication  recom- 
mend   any    such    infatuated   abandonment,    or    any   such    desperate 
assumption  ?     I  will  read  the  words  which  relate  to  that  subject, — • 
"  By  liberty  we  never  understood  unlimited  freedom,  nor  by  equality 
the  levelling  of  property  or  the  destruction  of  subordination."     I  ask 
you  with  what  justice,  upon  what  principle  of  common  sense,  you  can 
charge  a  man  for  the  publication  of  sentiments,  the  very  reverse  of 
what  his  words  avow  ?    And  that,  when  there  is  no  collateral  evidence, 
where  there  is  no  foundation  whatever,  save  those  very  words,  by 
which  his  meaning  can  be  ascertained  ?    Or  if  you  do  adopt  an  arbitrary 
principle  of  imputing  to  him  your  meaning  instead  of  his  own,  what 
publication  can  be  guiltless  or  safe  ?     It  is  a  sort  of  accusation  that 
I  am  ashamed  and  sorry  to  see  introduced  into  a  court  acting  on  the 
principles  of  the  British  constitution. 

In  the  bitterness  of  reproach  it  was  said,  '  out  of  thine  own  mouth 
will  I  condemn  thee  ;'  from  the  severity  of  justice  I  demand  no  more. 
See  if  in  the  words  that  have  been  spoken,  you  can  find  matter  to 
acquit,  or  to  condemn.  "  By  liberty  we  never  understood  unlimited 
freedom,  nor  by  equality  the  levelling  of  property,  or  the  destruction 
of  subordination.  This  is  a  calumny  invented  by  the  faction  or  that 
gang,  which  misrepresents  the  king  to  the  people,  and  the  people  to 
the  king,  traduces  one  half  of  the  nation  to  cajole  the  other,  and,  by 
keeping  up  distrust  and  division,  wishes  to  continue  the  proud  arbi- 
trators of  the  fortune  and  fate  of  Ireland."  Here  you  find  that  meaning 
disclaimed  as  a  calumny,  which  is  artfully  imputed  as  a  crime. 

I  say  therefore,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  as  to  the  four  parts  into  which 
the  publication  must  be  divided,  I  answer  thus :  it  calls  upon  the 
Volunteers.  Consider  the  time,  the  danger,  the  authority  of  the 
prosecutors  themselves  for  believing  that  danger  to  exist,  the  high 
character,  the  known  moderation,  the  approved  loyalty  of  that  vener- 
able institution,  the  similarity  of  the  circumstances  between  the  period 
at  which  they  were  summoned  to  take  arms,  and  that  in  which  they 
have  been  called  upon  to  reassume  them.  Upon  this  simple  ground, 
gentlemen,  you  will  decide,  whether  this  part  of  the  publication  was 
libellous  and  criminal  or  not. 

As  to  reform,  I  could  wish  to  have  said  nothing  upon  it,  I  believe 
I  have  said  enough  ;  if  he  thought  the  state  required  it,  he  acted  like 
an  honest  man  ;  for  the  rectitude  of  the  opinion  he  was  not  answerable, 
he  discharged  his  duty  in  telling  the  country  he  thought  so. 

As  to  the  emancipation  of  the  Catholics,  I  cannot  but  say  that  Mr. 
Attorney  General  did  very  wisely  in  keeping  clear  of  that.  Yet, 
gentlemen,  I  need  not  tell  you  how  important  a  figni-e  it  was  intended 
to  make  upon  the  scene,  though  from  imlucky  accidents,  it  has  become 
necessary  to  expunge  it  during  the  rehearsal. 


100  TRIAL    OF 

Of  the  concluding  part  of  tliis  publication,  the  convention  which  it 
recommends,  I  have  spoken  already.  I  wish  not  to  trouble  you  with 
saying  more  upon  it.  I  feel  that  I  have  already  trespassed  much  upon 
your  patience.  In  truth,  upon  a  subject  embracing  such  a  variety  of 
topics,  a  rigid  observance  either  of  conciseness  or  arrangement  could 
perhaps  scarcely  be  expected.  It  is,  however,  with  pleasure  I  feel  I 
am  drawing  to  a  close,  and  that  only  one  question  remains,  to  which 
I  would  beg  your  attention. 

Whatever,  gentlemen,  may  be  your  opinion  of  the  meaning  of  this 
publication,  there  yet  remains  a  great  point  for  you  to  decide  upon : 
namely,  whether,  in  point  of  fact,  this  pviblication  be  imputable  to  Mr. 
Rowan  or  not  ?  Whether  he  did  publish  it  or  not  ?  And  two  wit- 
nesses are  called  to  that  fact,  one  of  the  name  of  Lyster,  and  the  other 
of  the  name  of  Morton.  You  must  have  observed  that  Morton  gave 
no  evidence  upon  which  that  paper  could  have  even  been  read ;  he 
produced  no  paper,  he  identified  no  paper,  he  said  that  he  got  some 
paper,  but  that  he  had  given  it  away.  So  that,  in  point  of  law,  there 
was  no  evidence  given  by  him,  on  which  it  could  have  gone  to  a  jury, 
and,  therefore,  it  turns  entirely  upon  the  evidence  of  the  other  witness. 
He  has  stated  that  he  went  to  a  public  meeting,  in  a  place  where  there 
was  a  gallery  crowded  with  spectators  ;  and  that  he  there  got  a  printed 
paper,  the  same  which  has  been  read  to  you.  I  know  you  are  well 
acquainted  with  the  fact,  that  the  credit  of  every  witness  must  be 
considered  by,  and  rest  with  the  jury.  They  are  the  sovereign  judges 
of  that,  and  I  will  not  insult  your  feelings,  by  insisting  on  the  caution 
with  which  you  should  watch  the  testimony  of  a  witness  that  seeks  to 
affect  the  liberty,  or  property,  or  character  of  your  fellow  citizens. 
Under  what  circumstances  does  this  evidence  come  before  you  ?  The 
witness  says  he  has  got  a  commission  in  the  army  by  the  interest  of  a 
lady,  from  a  person  then  high  in  administration.  He  told  you  that  he 
made  a  memorandum  upon  the  back  of  that  paper,  it  being  his  general 
custom,  when  he  got  such  papers,  to  make  an  endorsement  upon  them  ; 
that  he  did  this  from  mere  fancy ;  that  he  had  no  intention  of  giving 
any  evidence  upon  the  subject ;  he  "  took  it  with  no  such  view."  There 
is  something  whimsical  in  this  curious  story.  Put  his  credit  upon  the 
positive  evidence  adduced  to  his  character.  Who  he  is  I  know  not,  I 
know  not  the  man ;  but  his  credit  is  impeached.  Mr.  Blake  was 
called,  he  said  he  knew  him.  I  asked  him — "  do  you  think.  Sir,  that 
Mr.  Lyster  is  or  is  not  a  man  deserving  credit  upon  his  oath  ?"  If 
you  find  a  verdict  of  conviction,  it  can  be  only  upon  the  credit 
of  Mr.  Lyster.  What  said  Mr.  Blake  ?  Did  he  tell  you  that  he 
believed  he  was  a  man  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath  ?  He  did 
not  attempt  to  say  that  he  was.  The  best  he  could  say  was,  that  he 
would  hesitate.  Do  you  believe  Blake  ?  Have  you  the  same  opinion 
of  Lyster's  testimony  that  Mr.  Blake  has  ?  Do  you  know  Lyster  ?  If 
you  do  know  him,  and  know  that  he  is  credible,  your  knowledge  should 
not  be  shaken  by  the  doubts  of  any  man.  But  if  you  do  not  know 
him,  you  must  take  his  credit  from  an  unimpeached  witness,  swearing 
that  he  would  hesitate  to  believe  him.  In  my  mind  there  is  a  circum- 
stance of  the  strongest  nature  that  came  out  from  Lyster  on  the  table. 
I  am  aware  that  a  most  respectalile  man,  if  impeached  by  surprise, 
may  not  be  prepared  to  repel  a  wanton  calumny  by  contrary  testimony. 


ARCHIBALD    HAMILTON    ROWAN.  101 

But  was  Lyster  unapprised  of  this  attack  upon  him?  What  said  he? 
"  I  knew  that  you  had  Blake  to  examine  against  me,  you  have  brought 
him  here  for  that  purpose."  He  knew  the  very  witness  that  was  to 
be  produced  against  him,  he  knew  that  his  credit  was  impeached,  and 
yet  he  produced  no  person  to  support  that  credit.  What  said  Mr. 
Smyth,  "  From  my  knowledge  of  him  I  would  not  believe  him  upon 
his  oath." 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  beg  pardon  but  I  must  set  Mr.  Curran 
right.  Mr.  Lyster  said  he  had  heard  Blake  would  be  here,  but  not 
in  time  to  prepare  himself. 

Mr.  Curran. — But  what  said  Mrs.  Hatchell  ?  Was  the  production 
of  that  witness  a  sui-prise  upon  Mr.  Lyster  ?  Her  cross-examination 
shews  the  fact  to  be  the  contrary.  The  learned  counsel,  you  see,  was 
perfectly  apprised  of  a  chain  of  private  circumstances,  to  which  he 
pointed  his  questions.  Did  he  know  these  circumstances,  by  inspira- 
tion ?  No  ;  they  could  come  only  from  Lyster  himself.  I  insist, 
therefore,  the  gentleman  kncAv  his  character  was  to  be  impeached ;  his 
counsel  knew  it,  and  not  a  single  witness  has  been  produced  to  support 
it ;  then  consider,  gentlemen,  upon  what  ground  you  can  find  a  verdict 
of  conviction  against  my  client,  when  the  only  witness  produced  to 
the  fact  of  publication  is  impeached,  without  even  an  attempt  to  defend 
his  character.  Many  hundreds,  he  said,  were  at  the  meeting,  why  not 
produce  one  of  them  to  swear  to  the  fact  of  such  a  meeting  ?  One  he 
has  ventured  to  name,  but  he  was  certainly  very  safe  in  naming  a 
person,  who  he  has  told  you  is  not  in  the  kingdom,  and  could  not 
therefore  be  called  to  confront  him. 

G-entlemen,  let  me  suggest  another  observation  or  two.  If  still  you 
have  any  doubt  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendant,  give  me 
leave  to  suggest  to  you  what  circumstances  you  ought  to  consider,  in 
order  to  found  your  verdict :  You  should  consider  the  character  of  the 
person  accused,  and  in  this  your  task  is  easy.  I  will  venture  to  say, 
there  is  not  a  man  in  this  nation,  more  known  than  the  gentleman 
who  is  the  subject  of  this  prosecution,  not  only  by  the  part  he  has 
taken  in  public  concerns,  and  which  he  has  taken  in  common  with 
many,  but  still  more  so,  by  that  extraordinary  sympathy  for  human 
affliction,  which,  I  am  sorry  to  think,  he  shares  with  so  small  a  numbei'. 
There  is  not  a  day  that  you  hear  the  cries  of  your  starving  manufac- 
turers in  your  streets,  that  you  do  not  also  see  the  advocate  of  their 
sufFei'ings — that  you  do  not  see  his  honest  and  manly  figure,  with 
uncovered  head,  soliciting  for  their  relief,  searching  the  frozen  heart 
of  charity,  for  every  string  that  can  be  touched  by  compassion,  and 
urging  the  force  of  every  argument  and  every  motive,  save  that  which 
his  modesty  suppresses — the  authority  of  his  own  genex'ous  example. 
Or  if  you  see  him  not  there,  you  may  trace  his  steps  to  the  private 
abode  of  disease,  and  famine,  and  despair,  the  messenger  of  heaven, 
bearing  with  him  food  and  medicine  and  consolation.  Are  these  the 
materials,  of  which  you  suppose  anarchy  and  public  rapine  to  be 
formed  ?  Is  this  the  man,  on  whom  to  fasten  the  abominable 
charge  of  goading  on  a  frantic  populace  to  mutiny  and  bloodshed  ? 
Is  this  the  man  likely  to  apostatize  from  every  principle  that 
can  bind  him  to  the  state  ;  his  birth,  his  property,  his  education, 
his  character,  and  his  children  ?     Let  me  tell  you,  gentlemen  of  the 


1U2  TRIAL,  OF 

jury,  that  if  you  agree  with  his  prosecutors,  in  thinking  that  there  ought 
to  be  a  sacrifice  of  such  a  man,  on  such  an  occasion,  and  upon  the 
credit  of  such  evidence,  you  are  to  convict  him — never  did  you,  never 
can  you  give  a  sentence,  consigning  any  man  to  public  punishment 
witli  less  danger  to  his  person  or  to  his  fame :  for  where  could  the 
hireling  be  found  to  fling  contumely  or  ingratitude  at  his  head,  whose 
private  distresses  he  had  not  laboured  to  alleviate,  or  w^hose  public 
condition  he  had  not  laboured  to  improve. 

I  cannot,  however,  avoid  adverting  to  a  circumstance  that  distin- 
guishes the  case  of  Mr.  Kowan,  from  that  of  a  late  sacrifice  in  a 
neighbouring  kingdom. 

The  severer  law  of  that  country,  it  seems,  and  happy  for  them  that 
it  should,  enables  them  to  remove  from  their  sight  the  victim  of  their 
infatuation  ; — the  more  merciful  spirit  of  our  law  deprives  you  of  that 
consolation ;  his  suiFerings  must  remain  for  ever  before  your  eyes,  a 
continual  call  upon  your  shame  and  your  remorse.  But  those  suffer- 
ings will  do  more  ;  they  will  not  rest  satisfied  with  your  unavailing 
contrition,  they  will  challenge  the  great  and  paramount  inquest  of 
society,  the  man  will  be  weighed  against  the  charge,  the  witness  and 
the  sentence;  and  impartial  justice  vAW  demand,  why  has  an  Irish 
jury  done  this  deed?  The  moment  he  ceases  to  be  regarded  as  a 
criminal,  he  becomes  of  necessity  an  accuser ;  and  let  me  ask  you, 
what  can  your  most  zealous  defenders  be  prepared  to  answer  to  such 
a  charge  ?  When  your  sentence  shall  have  sent  him  forth  to  that 
stage,  which  guilt  alone  can  render  infamous  ;  let  me  tell  you,  he  will 
not  be  like  a  little  statue  upon  a  mighty  pedestal,  diminishing  by 
elevation ;  but  he  will  stand  a  striking  and  imposing  object  upon  a 
monument,  which,  if  it  does  not,  and  it  cannot,  record  the  atrocity  of  his 
crime,  must  record  the  atrocity  of  his  conviction.  And  upon  this  sub- 
ject, credit  me  when  I  say,  that  I  am  still  more  anxious  for  you,  than  I 
can  possibly  be  for  him.  I  cannot  but  feel  the  peculiarity  of  your  situa- 
tion. Not  the  j  uiy  of  his  own  choice — which  the  law  of  England  allows, 
but  which  ours  refuses — collected  in  that  box  by  a  person,  certainly  no 
friend  to  Mr.  Rowan,  certainly  not  very  deeply  interested  in  giving  him 
a  very  impartial  j  ury — ^feeling  this,  as  I  am  persuaded  you  do,  you  cannot 
be  surprised,  however  you  may  be  distressed  at  the  mournful  pi-esage, 
with  which  an  anxious  public  is  led  to  fear  the  worst  from  your  possible 
determination.  But  I  will  not,  for  the  justice  and  honour  of  our  common 
country,  suffer  my  mind  to  be  borne  away  by  such  melancholy  antici- 
pation, I  will  not  relinquish  the  confidence  that  this  day  will  be  the 
period  of  his  sufferings  ;  and,  however  mercilessly  he  has  been  hitherto 
pursued,  that  your  verdict  will  send  him  home  to  the  arms  of  his 
family,  and  the  wishes  of  his  country.  But  if,  which  heaven  forbid, 
it  hath  still  been  unfortunately  determined,  that  because  he  has  not 
bent  to  power  and  authority,  because  he  would  not  bow  down  before 
the  golden  calf  and  worship  it,  he  is  to  be  bound  and  cast  into  the 
furnace ;  I  do  trust  in  God,  that  there  is  a  redeeming  spirit  in  the 
constitution,  which  will  be  seen  to  walk  with  the  sufferer  through  the 
flames,  and  to  preserve  him  unhurt  by  the  conflagration. 

[After  Mr,  Curran  had  concluded,  there  was  another  universal 
burst  of  applause  tlirou;:;li  tlie  court  and  hall,  for  some  minutes,  which 
was  again  silenced  by  the  interference  of  Lord  Clonmel.J 


ARCHIBALD    HAMIliTON    ROWAN.  103 

Mr.  Attorney-General — My  Lords,  It  is  Mr.  Prime  Serjeant's 
duty  to  speak  to  the  evidence,  but  as  Mr.  Curran  has  let  fall  some 
things  to  make  an  impression  not  merely  upon  those  Avho  surround  us, 
I  must  be  excused  in  stating  some  facts  known  to  no  human  being  but 
myself.  It  has  been  stated  that  this  was  an  oj^pressive  prosecution, 
and  that  oppression  has  been  intended  by  the  delay.  Now,  I  do  aver 
that  the  instructions  he  has  I'eceived  are  false ;  that  I  received  no 
instructions  of  tlie  kind  from  government,  and  no  government  could 
think  of  prevailing  with  me  in  such  a  measure.  I  feel  within  myself, 
that  no  man  could  ask  me  such  a  thing  twice  in  the  office  I  hold. 
Let  the  jury  consider  the  fact  as  it  is,  let  them  consider  the  evidence, 
and  God  forbid  !  they  should  be  influenced  by  anything  but  the 
evidence.  Mr.  Curran  states  that  oppression  is  practised — I  am 
responsible  to  the  court  for  my  conduct  hei-e,  and  if  I  have  carried  on 
this  prosecution  with  oppression,  I  am  responsible  to  the  country. 
Let  this  gentleman,  if  he  thinks  he  has  been  oppressed,  call  me  to 
punishment — let  me  be  a  disgrace  in  the  eye  of  the  country,  and  let 
me  be  driven  from  that  profession,  in  which  I  have  so  long  been 
honoui'ed.  The  facts  are  these  : — the  accusation  against  Mr.  Rowan 
was  made  in  the  month  of  December,  1792,  he  was  arrested  in  Janu- 
ary following,  and  brought  before  JNIr.  Justice  Downes  and  discharged 
upon  bail.  The  information  was  filed  in  Hilary  Term ;  as  soon  as  it 
was  possible  by  the  rules  of  the  court,  Mr.  Rowan  pleaded,  and  the 
ve7iire  issued,  I  do  protest  with  a  bona  fide  intention  to  try  Mr.  Rowan. 
After  that,  an  error  was  found  in  the  record,  though  it  had  been  com- 
pared before  ;  the  error  was  this  ;  in  the  record  the  words  were  "  we 
would  do"  so  and  so  ;  in  the  publication  it  was  "would  we  do"  so  and 
so.  As  soon  as  that  was  discovered,  notice  was  given  that  the  trial 
could  not  come  forward,  and  the  witnesses  were  dismissed.  In  Trinity 
Term,  application  was  made  to  issue  the  venire^  and  it  appeared  from 
the  Recorder,  that  he  was  aware  of  the  defects  ;  I  am  above  conceal- 
ing anything,  I  admit  he  did  offer  to  waive  any  objection  to  the  error 
and  go  to  trial  directly.  I  asked  Mr.  Kemmis,  "  are  the  witnesses 
gone  out  of  town" — "They  are  gone  to  Galway."  I  was  therefore 
obliged  to  refuse  the  offer,  but  entered  a  Noli  prosequi  and  filed  a  new 
information.  Mr.  Rowan  put  his  plea  upon  the  file,  and  in  Michaelmas 
Term  I  applied  for  a  trial.  There  were  several  trials  at  bar  appointed, 
and  the  coui't  refused,  in  consequence  of  the  business  before  them,  to 
try  it  in  that  term  ;  and  appointed  it  for  this  term.  These  are  the 
facts  I  think  it  my  duty  to  mention,  and  have  no  more  to  say  upon 
the  subject,  but  will  leave  the  case  entirely  to  the  jury,  whose  verdict 
will  not  be  influenced  by  such  topics  as  have  been  thrown  out. 

Mr.  Curran — Mr.  Attorney,  I  could  not  know  the  cii'cumstance 
you  mention,  of  your  witnesses  being  gone  out  of  town. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — It  was  impossible  you  should.* 

*  111  the  latter  end  of  December,  1792,  Mr.  Rowan  was  arrested  by  virtue  of 
Mr.  Justice  Downes's  warrant,  on  a  charge  of  distributing  a  seditious  paper — 
Mr.  Justice  Downes  having  assured  Mr.  Rowan,  that  the  examinations,  upon 
wliich  the  warrant  was  grounded,  would  be  returned  to  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown, 
and  that  they  would,  he  supposed,  be  in  course  by  him  laid  before  the  next  term 
grand  jury,  Mr.  Rowan,  instead  of  going  to  jail,  in  pursuance  of  his  own  opinion, 
followed  the  advice  of  liis  law  friends,  and  giive  bail  for   his  appearance  in  the 


104  TRIAL    OF 

Mr.  Prime  Sergeant — Wearied  and  exhausted  as  you,  my  lords, 
and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  must  be  at  this  late  hour,  I  yet  feel  it  my 
duty  to  trespass  a  short  time  upon  you,  in  a  prosecution  which  the 
Attorney- General  has  been  obliged  to  institute  :  Gentlemen,  I  say 
obliged,  because  prosecution  is  painful  to  him,  as  well  as  to  those  who 
act  with  him.  The  infliction  of  punishment  is  disagreeable  to  the 
court,  but  in  our  public  duty  these  weaknesses  must  give  way. 
There  is  justice  due  to  the  public ;  my  learned  friend  is  the  advocate 
of  justice  to  the  public,  not  of  persecution  against  the  defendant. 
There  is  no  man,  who  recollects  the  period  at  which  this  publication 
came  out,  too  notorious  and  shameful  to  be  forgotten,  who  must  not  have 
thought  it  highly  proper  to  bring  the  publisher  to  a  legal  trial.      To 

King's  Bench,  to  answer  such  charges  as  should  be  there  made  against  him.  Dur- 
ing the  succeeding  Hilary  Term,  Mr.  Rowan  daily  attended  in  tlie  King's  Bench, 
and  on  the  last  day  of  that  term,  finding  that  no  examinations  had  been  laid  be- 
fore the  grand  jury  against  him,  he  applied,  by  counsel,  to  the  court,  that  the 
examinations  should  be  forthwith  returned,  particularly  as  Mr.  Attorney- General 
had,  in  the  course  of  the  term,  filed  two  informations  ex-officio  against  him,  the 
one  for  the  same  alledged  offence  of  distributing  a  seditious  paper,  and  the  other 
for  a  seditious  conspiracy ;  whereupon,  Mr.  Justice  Downes,  who  was  on  the 
bench,  having  asserted  that  he  had  on  the  first  day  of  the  term,  returned  the  ex- 
aminations to  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown,  and  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  having  said 
that  from  the  multiplicity  of  examinations  returned  to  him  on  the  first  day  of  the 
term,  in  the  course  of  the  term,  and  even  on  that  day,  he  had  not  had  time  to  look 
them  over,  the  court  refused  to  make  any  order.  Air.  Rowan  daily  attended  the 
King's  Bench  in  the  following  Easter  Term,  until  the  same  was  nearly  spent, 
and  finding  that  no  bills  were  sent  up  to  the  Grand  Jury  against  him,  he  moved  the 
court,  by  counsel,  that  the  recognizance  entered  into  by  him  and  his  bail,  should 
be  vacated,  and  publicly  declared  that  if  this  motion  was  not  granted,  he  would 
surrender  himself  in  discharge  of  his  bail.  The  Attorney-General  consenting, 
the  motion  was  granted,  and  the  recognizance  was  vacated. 

[It  may  not  be  improper  here  to  state,  that  the  above  examinations  having 
charged  Mr.  James  Napper  Tandy,  with  having  distributed  a  seditious  paper 
equally  with  Mr.  Rowan,  he  likewise  gave  bail ;  but  not  having  appeared  in  court 
pursuant  to  his  recognizance,  it  was  estreated,  green-wax  process  issued  against 
the  bail,  and  the  amount  of  the  recognizance  levied  from  them,  though  no  bill  of 
indictment,  grounded  on  these  examinations,  was  ever  preferred  against  him,  and 
though  his  absence  was  notoriously  on  another  account.] 

In  the  above  mentioned  Easter  Term,  a  motion  was  made,  on  behalf  of  Mr. 
Rowan,  to  fix  certain  days  for  trial  of  the  informations  filed  ex-officio  against  him, 
and  the  Attorney-General  having  agreed  to  the  appointment  of  two  days  in  the 
ensuing  Trinity  Term,  viz.  the  i3d  and  7th  days  of  May,  those  days  were  accord- 
ingly appointed  for  the  purpose.  However,  in  the  Easter  vacation,  the  Attorney- 
General  served  a  notice  on  Mr.  Rowan,  that  he  would  not  proceed  to  trial  on 
those  days,  and  would  apply  to  the  court  to  appoint  other  days,  grounded  on  aa 
affidavit  to  be  filed,  of  which  notice  would  be  given :  nothing  was  done  upon  this 
notice,  and  no  affidavit  was  filed,  or  motion  made  thereon,  and  the  venire,  the  pro- 
cess necessary  for  impannelling  juries  on  the  days  appointed,  having  been,  after 
being  issued,  kept  by  Mr.  Kemmis,  the  crown  solicitor,  instead  of  being  delivered 
to  the  sheriff,  a  motion  was  made,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Rowan,  in  tiie  last  Trinity 
Terra,  that  the  venire  should  be  delivered  to  the  proper  officer,  in  order,  that  the 
trials  might  be  had  on  the  days  appointed,  in  case  the  court  should  not  grant  any 
motion  the  Attorney-General  might  make  for  postponing  the  trials.  This  motion 
was  opposed  by  the  Attorney-General — he  declared,  that  there  was  error  in  the 
information  for  distributing  a  seditious  paper.  Mr.  Rowan  offered  to  agree  to  an 
immediate  amendment  of  the  information,  or  that  a  fresh  one  should  be  filed  and 
pleaded  to  instanter,  or  that  he  would  release  all  errors  ; — all  these  offers  were 
severally  refused.  The  object  of  the  Attorney-General  appeared  to  be  to  post- 
pone the  trials,  and  though  only  one  of  the  informations  was  stated  to  be  informal, 
yet  the  day  appointed  for  the  trial  of  the  other,  which  was  supposed  to  be  formal. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  105 

the  exertions  of  government,  at  that  time,  it  is  to  be  attributed  that 
the  trial  by  jury  still  subsists  among  us,  and  that  he  has  not  been 
before  now  tried  at  another  court ;  that  the  King's  Bench  has  not 
been  superseded  by  a  Revolutionary  Tribunal ;  and  that  my  learned 
friend  has  not,  ere  now,  made  room  for  the  Public  Accuser.  The 
defendant  must  think  it  fortunate  that  he  is  tried  according  to 
established  law,  and  defended  by  counsel  of  his  own  election,  and 
before  a  jury,  bound  by  a  solemn  appeal  to  God,  to  find  according  to 
the  evidence  given  to  them,  notwithstanding  that  disgraceful  situation 
in  which  it  has  been  stated  they  will  be  held,  if  they  presume  to  find 
a  verdict  of  conviction.  I  feel  no  danger  that  this  jury  can  be 
intimidated  by  apprehensions,  or  influenced  by  prejudice.  My  learned 
friend  and  I  have  been  represented  as  instruments  of  oppression 
against  the  gentleman  at  the  bar.  I  consider  it  as  the  talk  of  the 
moment,  because  his  learned  counsel  little  knows  us,  if  he  thinks  us 
capable  of  acting  so  abominable  a  part ;  he  could  not  mean  it  in  the 
extent  to  which  it  reaches  the  common  ear.  I  can  consider  it  only  as 
the  splendid  effusion  of  his  talents  ;  he  was  anxious  to  lead  you, 
gentlemen,  from  that  which  was  the  true  object  of  consideration.  You 
have  been  told,  the  defendant  was  prosecuted  because  he  published  an 
invitation  to  the  Volunteers,  entered  into  the  discussion  of  a  reform 
and  Catholic  Emancipation,  and  endeavoured  to  have  a  national 
convention  assembled.  I  will  tell  the  jury  it  is  not  a  prosecution 
upon  any  one  of  these  grounds  ;  but  a  prosecution,  because  these 
subjects  were  thrown  before  the  public  in  a  paper  crammed  with 
libellous  and  seditious  matter,  calculated  to  inflame.  These  measures, 
which  were  sought  after,  should  be  procured  by  the  power  of  reason 
and  not  by  an  intimidation  of  the  legislature.  Little  does  the 
defendant's  counsel  know  me,  if  he  thinks  I  could  prosecute  a  man  for 
calling  upon  the  Volunteers  to  suppress  domestic  tumult  or  resist 
a  foreign  foe ;  these  are  the  subjects  to  which  he  calls  your  attention, 
totally  evading  the  offensive  matter  in  the  publication.  Gentlemen, 
the  questions  which  you  are  to  try  are  these :  Was  this  matter 
published  ?  Is  it  a  libel  ?  And  was  the  intention  criminal  ?  Can 
he  desire  more  ?  If  it  was  not  published,  if  it  be  not  libellous  and 
the  intention  was  not  criminal,  I  agree  that  the  defendant  ought  to  be 

passed  away  Avithout  trial,  equally  with  the  day  appointed  for  the  trial  of  the  one 
which  was  stated  to  be  informal.  The  Attorney-General  afterwards  withdrew 
the  information  stated  to  have  been  informal,  and  filed  another  in  the  stead  thereof. 
INIany  of  Mr.  Rowan's  friends  suspected,  that  the  motive  for  postponing  the  trials 
was  the  expectation  of  having,  under  the  shrievalty  of  Mr.  Giffard,  juries  more 
favourable  to  government  prosecutions,  than  they  could  entertain  any  hopes  of 
having  during  the  shrievalty  of  Mr.  Hutton.  In  Michaelmas  Term  last,  the 
Attorney-General  applied  to  the  coiu-t,  that  a  day  should  be  appointed  for  the  trial 
of  the  information  for  distributing  a  seditious  paper  ;  the  court  would  not  appoint 
a  day  in  that  term,  but  appointed  a  day  for  the  trial  of  that  information  in  Hilary 
Term  following,  viz.  the  '29th  January  last.  After  Mr.  Rowan  had  received  his 
sentence,  being  desirous  of  having  the  information  for  a  seditious  conspiracy  also 
tried  and  disposed  of,  he  instructed  his  counsel  to  move  for  the  appointment  of  a 
day  for  the  purpose  ;  and  the  counsel  having  mentioned  to  the  Attorney-General 
such  his  instruction,  the  Attorney-General  said  that  it  was  not  his  intention  to 
proceed  upon  that  information,  and  that  he  had  been  prevented  only  by  a  press  of 
business  from  withdrawing  it,  but  would  without  further  delay,  and  accordingly 
the  Attorney-General  has  since  entered  a  noli  prosequi  as  to  that  information. 


106  TRIAL    OF 

acquitted ;  and  if  the  jury  acquit  him  after  a  fair  and  candid 
discussion  of  the  case,  no  man  will  be  more  satisfied  than  I  shall. 
But  if,  without  such  a  consideration,  a  juiy,  in  times  of  distraction 
and  disorder  should,  acquit  the  factious,  I  agree  with  the  gentleman, 
that  the  world  would  bear  hard  upon  a  jury,  who  from  fear  or  favour 
betrayed  that  situation  in  which  the  law  and  the  constitution  placed 
them. 

Let  me  now,  gentlemen,  take  that  place  which  it  is  my  duty  to 
take,  and  which  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side,  I  suppose  from 
address,  so  lightly  touched  upon.  I  shall  reverse  the  order  he  adopted. 
The  first  question  then  is,  "  Whether  the  publication  of  this  libel  was 
by  the  defendant  ?"  If  there  be  a  man,  entertaining  a  doubt  after  the 
evidence  stated,  it  is  in  vain  for  me  to  address  him.  In  support  of  the 
fact  of  publication  Mr.  Lyster  has  been  examined  ;  he  states  that, 
upon  the  day  of  the  publication  of  the  paper,  he  Avas  passing  through 
Cope-street,  in  this  city,  and  seeing  a  great  crowd  at  the  house  of  Mr. 
Pardon,  he  went  there  to  know  what  the  object  of  the  meeting  was  ; 
he  says,  that  on  going  to  the  door  he  saw  Mr.  Rowan,  Avho  prevented 
him  from  going  to  that  part  where  the  assembly  was,  saying  he  could 
not  be  let  in  with  coloured  clothes :  afterwards  he  went  up  to  the 
gallery  :  a  bundle  of  papei's  was  brought,  some  were  thrown  upon  the 
table,  and  some  handed  up  to  the  gallery,  and  this  particular  paper 
which  he  produced  was  thrown  from  a  parcel  which  Mr.  Hamilton 
Rowan  had  in  his  hand.  The  witness  got  this  paper,  which  was  thus 
for  the  first  time  put  into  cii-culation :  he  gave  an  account  of  the 
manner  in  which  this  matter  was  communicated  to  the  CroAvn  Solicitor. 
The  witness  was  questioned  much  as  to  family  matters,  with  a  view 
to  impeach  his  character,  but  it  has  had  a  contrary  efiect,  for 
the  matter  was  submitted  to  reference,  and  the  authenticity  of  the 
instrument  under  which  his  brother  claimed,  has  been  established, 
and  some  hundreds  awarded,  one  shilling  of  Avhich  would  not  have 
been  given  if  they  believed  the  instrument  to  be  forged.  When  he 
was  interrogated  as  to  these  matters,  he  said  he  heard,  this  day,  that 
Mr.  Blake  was  to  be  examined  to  impeach  his  character,  "  If  I  knew 
it  before,  said  he,  I  could  have  had  witnesses  from  the  country 
to  support  me."  But  when  Mr.  Blake  was  called,  did  he  in  any 
respect  whatever  impeach  the  chai'acter  of  Mr.  Lyster?  he  would 
not  say  that  Mr.  Lyster  was  not  to  be  believed.  What  then  must  you 
think,  when  resort  has  been  had  to  distant  counties  to  find  witnesses  to 
impeach  the  character  of  Mr.  Lyster,  and  out  of  the  150  men  assembled  in 
Cope-street,  no  one  has  been  brought  forAvard  to  deny  the  fact  which  has 
been  SAvorn  to  ?  Will  the  jury  believe  that  if  the  fact  could  be  contro- 
verted, men  would  not  come  forAvard  Avith  emulation  to  acquit  Mr. 
RoAvan  ?  I  there  join  with  his  counsel :  he  is  far  above  bringing  any  man 
forward  to  swear  that  Avhich  is  not  the  fact ;  he  Avoidd  not  pui'chase 
an  acquittal  by  such  means,  and  therefore  it  is,  gentlemen,  that  you 
have  not  witnesses  to  prove  he  was  not  there,  or  to  prove  he  Avas  in- 
active upon  the  occasion. 

The  next  Avitness,  gentlemen,  was  Mr.  Moi'ton:  he  goes  in  direct 
confirmation  of  every  tiling  sworn  to  by  Lyster,  though  he  does  not 
pi'ove  the  same  individual  paper;  but  he  remembered  hearing  the 
words  of  such  another  paper  read,  it  l)egan  Avith  the  Avords,  "  Citizen 


ARCHIBALD    HAMILTON    ROWAN.  107 

soildiers,  to  arms!"  This  evidence,  though  not  decisive  of  itself  as 
to  the  identity  of  the  paper,  is  corroborative  of  the  testimony  of 
Lyster,  and  shows  that  Mr.  Rowan  was  there.  Thus  stafids  the 
evidence  as  to  the  publication.  Can  any  man  doubt  that  this  paper 
was  i)ublished  by  Mr.  Rowan  ?  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  tell  you 
what  is  a  publication  in  point  of  law,  as  to  writing  or  printing  ;  but 
putting  it  into  circulation  is  a  publication  in  law  and  fact.  I  forgot 
to  take  notice  of  the  other  impotent  attempts  to  impeach  the  credit  of 
Mr.  Lyster  by  the  evidence  of  Smyth,  who  could  not  jirove  any  thing; 
and  the  evidence  of  an  unfortunate  woman,  between  whose  daughter 
and  Mr.  Lyster's  brother  there  had  been  some  attachment.  But  that 
I  leave  as  matter  of  law  to  your  loixlships  to  state  to  the  jury.  Thus 
stands  the  evidence  ;  and  with  regard  to  the  publication,  if  I  were 
upon  the  jury,  no  earthly  consideration  could  induce  me  not  to  give  a 
verdict  of  conviction. 

I  shall  now  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  the  publication  itself. 
It  is  charged  in  the  information  that  it  was  designed  to  overthrow  the 
Government,  to  overawe  the  Legislature,  to  create  tumvilt  and  dis- 
order. There  are  paragraphs  in  the  paper  to  warrant  every  charge 
contained  in  the  information,  which  is,  in  point  of  law,  sufficiently 
sustained.  If  there  be  a  single  paragraph  of  this  paper  to  warrant 
the  jury  to  draw  this  conclusion,  that  it  was  intended  to  throw  the 
Government  into  disgrace,  to  excite  the  subjects  to  make  alterations 
in  the  Government  by  force,  to  excite  them  to  tumult,  to  overawe  the 
Legislature  by  an  armed  force;  if,  I  say,  there  is  a  single  paragraph 
in  this  paper,  from  which  you  can  di'aw  that  inference,  it  sutficiently 
proves  the  subject  matter  of  the  information.  The  gentleman  con- 
cerned for  the  defendant  read,  from  the  account  of  a  trial,  what  an 
English  jury  did  in  the  case  of  the  Morning  Chronicle,  as  an  example 
for  an  Irish  jury,  as  if  that  was  to  bind  you  upon  your  oaths;  and 
yet  what  was  the  case  ?  The  jury  thought  that  a  printer,  endea- 
vouring to  get  his  bread,  was  not  as  guilty  as  the  person  composing 
the  libel,  and  that  the  former  did  not  distribute  it  with  any  malicious 
view.  But  suppose  500  juries  fovuid  such  a  verdict,  are  you  to  follow 
their  example  ?  I  am  wishing  to  take  up  the  distinction  made  by 
the  defendant's  counsel  and  my  learned  friend  in  the  prosecution.  If 
this  paper  had  rested  with  the  invitation  of  the  Volunteers  to  arms, 
he  never  would  have  instituted  this  prosecution  upon  that  account. 
As  in  the  case  in  England,  Loi'd  Kenyon  said,  "  there  may  be  much 
innocent  matter  in  the  publication,  but  latet  unguis  in  herba,  there 
may  be  much  to  censm-e."  But  here  is  a  publication  teeming  with 
faction,  tumult,  and  sedition ;  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  it  was  intended 
for  the  old  Volunteers,  it  comes  from  the  Society  of  United  Irishmen. 
The  first  words  have  been  passed  over  by  the  defendant's  counsel, 
but  they  shew  at  once  the  wicked  adoption  of  French  principles  and 
French  language.  Is  there  any  man  who  does  not  know  that  at  that 
period,  the  French  revolutionists  universally  adopted  the  expression 
of  "  Citizens."  This  paper  begins,  "  Citizen  soldiers,  you  first  took 
up  arms  to  protect  your  country  from  foreign  enemies  and  domestic 
disturbance ;  for  the  same  purposes  it  now  becomes  necessary  tliat 
you  should  resume  them."  It  is  not  confined  to  summoning  the  Vo- 
lunteers to  protect  their  country,  it  calls  them  to  political  discussion : 


108  TRIAL    OF 

was  this  a  period  for  such  proceedings  ?     "A  proclamation  has  been 
issued  in  England  for  embodying  the  Militia,  and  a  proclamation  has 
been  issued  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and   Council    in  L-eland,  for 
repressing  all  seditious  associations ;  in  consequence  of  both  these 
proclamations  it  is  reasonable  to  apprehend  danger  from  abroad  and 
danger  at  home.      For  whence  but  from  apprehended  danger  are 
those  menacing  preparations  for  war  drawn  through  the  streets  of 
this  capital  ?    or  whence,  if   not  to  create  that  internal  commotion 
which  was  not  found,  to  shake  that  credit  which  was  not  affected,  to 
blast  that  Volunteer  honor  which  was  hitherto  inviolate."     Gentlemen, 
was  public  credit  affected  or  not  ?     Was  there  a  man  at  that  time  who 
could  reckon  upon  the  security  of  his  house  for  a  night  ?     "  Whence 
are  those  terrible  suggestions,  and  rumours,  and  whispers  that  meet 
us  at  every  corner,  and  agitate  at  least  our  old  men,  our  women,  and 
our  children  ?     Whatever  be  the  motive,  or  from  whatever  quarter  it 
arises,  alarm  has  arisen ;  and  you  Volunteers  of  Ireland  are  there- 
fore summoned  to  arms  at  the  instance  of  Government,  as  well  as  by 
the  responsibility  attached  to  your  character,  and  the  permanent  obli- 
gations of  your  institution."     If  this  Avere  a  real  invitation  to  the 
Volunteers,  it  would  endeavour  to  reconcile  them  to  Government. 
They  were  called  upon  to  defend,  to  stand  or  fall  with  the  consti- 
tution, which  they  had,   so  much  to  their  honor,  exerted  themselves 
to  establish.      But   here  follows    a  direct   insinuation  calculated   to 
excite  jealousy  between  the   Government  and  them.     "  We  will  not 
at  this  day  condescend  to  quote  authorities  for  the  right  of  having 
and  of  using  arms,  but  we  will  cry  aloud,  even  amidst  the  storm 
raised  by  the  witch-craft  of  a  proclamation."     Is  that  a  peaceable 
invitation  to  the  Volunteers  ?     "  that  to  your  formation  was  owing 
the  peace  and  protection  of  this  island,  to  your  relaxation  has  been 
owing  its  relapse  into  impotence  and  insignificance ;"  here  the  country 
is  represented  to  be  in  such  a  state,  that  every  man  is  called  upon  to 
rescue  it  from  insignificance  ;  "  to  your  renovation  must  be  owing  its 
future  freedom  and  its  present  tranquillity ;  you  are  therefore  sum- 
moned to  arms,  in  order  to  preserve  your  country  in  that  guarded 
quiet  which  may  secure  it  from  external  hostility,   and  to  maintain 
that  intenial  regimen  throughout  the  land  which,  superseding  a  noto- 
rious police  or  a  suspected  militia,  may  preserve  the  blessings  of  peace 
by    a   vigilant  preparation  for   war."       This  is  a   peaceable,    quiet 
invitation    to    the  Volunteers,     setting    them  against    the  legalised 
establishments  of  the  country,  and  against  that  measure  which  was  in 
agitation. 

It  is  called  a  "  suspected  militia."  The  establishment  of  a  great 
constitutional  force,  a  militia,  will  be  soon  experienced  to  be  of 
advantage  to  tlie  kingdom,  and  not  an  oppression  ;  but  too  fiital  have 
been  the  consequences  of  decrying  it ;  opposition  Avas  giA^en  to  the 
militia  law,  and  numbers  have  fallen  sacrifices  to  their  error.  It  is 
nothing  less  than  an  order  to  the  army  to  disband ;  that  body  of  men 
to  whom  we  OAve  the  safety  of  the  state,  are  told  they  are  not  to  be 
entrusted.  "  Citizen  soldiers,  to  arms,  take  up  the  shield  of  freedom 
and  the  pledges  of  peace — peace,  the  motive  and  end  of  your  virtuous 
institution — Avar,  an  occasional  duty,  ought  never  to  be  made  an 
occupation  ;  every  man  should  become  a  soldier  in  the  defence  of  his 


ARCHIBALD    HAMILTON    ROWAN.  109 

rights  ;  no  man  ouglit  to  continue  a  soldier  for  offending  the  rights 
of  others ;  the  sacrifice  of  life  in  the  service  of  our  country  is  a  duty 
much  too  honorable  to  be  intrusted  to  mercenaries."  In  another 
paragraph  it  says,  "  By  liberty  we  never  understand  unlimited  free- 
dom, nor  by  equality  the  levelling  of  property  or  the  destruction  of 
subordination  ;  this  is  a  calumny  invented  by  that  faction,  or  that 
gang,  which  misrepresents  the  King  to  the  people,  and  the  people  to 
the  King."  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  paragraph  ?  it  was  unintel- 
ligible to  me,  until  I  heard  the  argument  of  the  counsel ;  he  did  fairly 
avow  it  to  be  the  Government  of  this  country,  that  a  gang  was 
formed  to  preserve  themselves  in  power  ;  otherwise  indeed  it  is  the 
most  rank  nonsense  and  ribaldry  that  ever  fell  from  the  pen  of  man ;  it 
seems  to  be  a  French  idea,  to  excite  tumult  in  the  whole  body  of  the 
people.  The  publication  goes  on  and  says,  "  Here  we  sit  without  mace 
or  beadle,  neither  a  mystery  nor  a  craft,  nor  a  corporation — in  four 
words  lies  all  our  power,  UNIVERSAL  EMANCIPATION  and 
REPRESENTATIVE  LEGISLATURE;  yet  we  are  confident 
that  on  the  pivot  of  this  principle,  a  convention,  still  less  a  society, 
less  still  a  single  man,  will  be  able  first  to  move  and  then  to  raise  the 
world.  We  therefore  wish  for  Catholic  emancipation,  without  any 
modification,  but  still  we  consider  this  necessary  enfranchisement  as 
merely  the  portal  to  the  temple  of  national  freedom  ;  wide  as  this 
entrance  is — wide  enough  to  admit  three  millions — it  is  narrow  when 
compared  to  the  capacity  and  comprehension  of  our  beloved  prin- 
ciple, which  takes  in  every  individual  of  the  Irish  nation,  casts  an 
equal  eye  over  the  whole  island,  embraces  all  that  think,  and  feels  for 
all  that  suffer.  The  Catholic  cause  is  subordinate  to  our  cause,  and 
included  in  it ;  for,  as  LTnited  Irishmen,  we  adhere  to  no  sect  but  to 
society — to  no  creed  but  Christianity — to  no  party  but  the  whole 
people.  In  the  sincerity  of  our  souls  do  we  desire  Catholic  emanci- 
pation ;  but  were  it  obtained  to-morrow,  to-morrow  would  we  go  on, 
as  we  do  to-day,  in  the  pursuit  of  that  reform,  which  would  still  be 
wanting  to  ratify  their  liberties  as  well  as  our  own."  Here  the  libel 
recommends  an  emancipation  to  the  Catholics,  as  a  colourable  pi-etence 
for  accomplishing  their  other  schemes.  "  For  both  these  purposes," 
says  it,  "  it  appears  necessary  that  provincial  conventions  should 
assemble  preparatory  to  the  convention  of  the  Protestant  people. 
The  delegates  of  the  Catholic  body  are  not  justified  in  communicating 
with  individuals,  or  even  bodies  of  inferior  authority,  and  therefore 
an  assembly  of  a  similar  nature  and  organization — here  the  very 
terms  made  use  of  by  the  French  revolutionists  are  again  adopted  in 
this  publication — "  is  necessary  to  establish  an  intercourse  of  sentiment, 
an  uniformity  of  conduct,  an  united  cause  and  an  united  nation." 
In  the  subsequent  paragraph,  the  author  enforces  the  necessity  of 

the  speedy  meeting  of  conventions "  If,"  says  he,  "  a  convention  on 

the  one  part  does  not  soon  follow,  and  is  not  soon  connected  with  that 
on  the  other,  the  common  cause  will  split  into  the  partial  interest ; 
the  people  will  relax  into  inattention  and  inertness ;  the  union  of 
affection  and  exertion  will  dissolve ;  and  too  probably  some  local 
insurrections,  instigated  by  the  malignity  of  our  common  enemy, 
may  commit  the  character  and  risque  the  tranquillity  of  the  island ; 
which  can  be  obviated  only  by  the  influence  of  an  assembly  arising 


110  TRIAL,    OF 

from,  assimilated  with  the  people,  and  whose  spirit  may  be,  as  it 
were,  knit  with  the  soul  of  the  nation — unless  the  sense  of  the 
Protestant  people  be,  on  their  part,  as  fairly  collected  and  as 
judiciously  directed  ;  unless  individual  exertion  consolidates  into 
collective  strength ;  unless  the  particles  unite  into  mass,  we  may 
perhaps  serve  some  person  or  some  party  for  a  little,  but  the  public 
not  at  all."  Does  this  mean  to  give  the  fullest  dominion  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  people,  to  overawe  the  governing  executive 
power?  Gentlemen,  the  mass  of  the  people  is  to  be  collected  after 
the  French  manner,  and  bear  down  all  before  them.  French  doctrines 
were  to  be  carried  into  execution.  Are  those  the  innocent  exami- 
nation of  claims,  and  the  discussion  of  great  political  subjects?  To 
what  part  of  the  discussion  was  it  necessary  to  tell  the  army,  that 
"  seduction  made  them  soldiers  ?"  Was  it  necessary  for  the  delibera- 
tion of  that  great  question,  the  emancipation  of  the  Catholics  of 
Ireland,  to  say  to  the  army,  "  seduction  made  tliem  soldiers,  but  nature 
made  them  men  ?"  The  words  are,  "  We  now  address  you  as  citizens, 
for  to  be  citizens  you  become  soldiers,  nor  can  we  help  wishing  that 
all  soldiers  partaking  the  passions  and  interest  of  the  people  would 
remember,  that  they  were  once  citizens,  that  seduction  made  them 
soldiers,  but  '  Nature  made  them  men.'  "  I  say,  gentlemen,  where  was 
the  necessity  of  telling  the  army,  that  seduction  made  them  soldiers? 
Was  it  necessary  to  detach  them  from  their  duty,  for  the  pui'poses 
which  this  publication  intended  to  accomplish  ?  You  are  told  that 
their  whole  creed,  their  whole  system  "lay  in  four  words,  UNIVER- 
SAL EMANCIPATION  and  REPRESENTATIVE  LEGIS- 
LATURE." I  say,  without  universal  slavery  there  cannot  be 
universal  emancipation,  and  without  the  ruin  of  that  constitution,  the 
panegyric  upon  which  produced  such  a  bui'st  of  applause  in  favour 
of  the  learned  counsel,  there  cannot  be  a  representative  legislature. 
The  legislative  authority  consists  of  King,  Lords  and  Commons. 
But  they  must  have  an  elected  King,  and  elected  nobles  to  answer 
their  ideas  of  representative  legislature.  I  am  unwilling  to  state  the 
seditiousness  of  this  libel  farther :  but  there  is  another  paragraph 
that  deserves  to  be  considered,  it  says,  "  The  nation  is  neither  inso- 
lent, nor  rebelliovis,  nor  seditious ;  while  it  knows  its  rights,  it  is 
unwilling  to  manifest  its  powers  ;  it  would  rather  supplicate  adminis- 
tration to  anticipate  revolution  by  a  well-timed  reform,  and  to  save 
their  country  in  mercy  to  themselves."  Here  the  government  of  this 
country  was  called  upon  to  yield  to  this  reform,  to  anticipate  revo- 
lution, and  save  this  country  in  mercy  to  themselves.  The  peaceable 
language  of  discussion !  Can  you  read  this  publication  and  say  it 
was  not  the  intention  of  the  publisher  to  intimidate  and  overawe  the 
government  of  this  country  ?  The  people  are  invited  to  arms  to 
catch  a  revolution  by  force,  and  then  the  government  is  called  upon 
to  anticipate  the  revolution  by  a  reform.  Is  this  the  peaceable  dis- 
cussion for  which  the  counsel  contend  ?  Or  is  this  the  freedom  of 
the  press,  for  which  I  would  go  as  far  as  any  man.  Here  the  libel 
appoints  a  particular  day  for  the  convention  to  meet ;  it  says  "  The 
15th  of  February  approaches — a  day  ever  memorable  in  the  annals 
of  this  couiitry,  as  the  birth  day  of  New  Ireland ;  let  parochial  meet- 
ings be  held  as  soon  as  possible  ;  let  each  parish  retm-n  delegates  ; 


ARCHIBALD    HAMILTON    ROWAN.  Ill 

let  the  sense  of  Ulster  be  again  declared  from  Dungannon,  on  a  day 
auspicious  to  union,  peace  and  fi-eedom,  and  the  spirit  of  the  North 
will  again  become  the  spirit  of  the  nation.  The  civil  assembly  ought 
to  claim  the  attendance  of  the  military  associations."  Here  the  mi- 
litary associations  were  particularly  called  on  to  attend  the  civil  as- 
sembly at  Dungannon  :  Was  it  for  the  purpose  of  giving  weight  to 
their  resolutions  ?  Was  it  for  the  purpose  of  sending  their  reso- 
lutions to  parliament,  backed  by  the  people  in  arms  ?  It  was 
a  national  convention  to  be  attended  by  a  national  guard. — • 
This  was  the  object  of  this  publication  as  it  strikes  me ;  the 
very  able  manner  in  which  it  was  gone  through  by  my  learned 
friend,  makes  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  dwell  upon  it,  least  I  should 
weaken  the  force  of  his  remarks.  If  you  are  satisfied  of  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Rowan  did  publish  tlie  instrument  in  question,  then  you 
will  consider  whether  that  publication,  was  likely  to  produce  the 
effects  mentioned  in  the  information,  and  you  Avill  decide  whether 
the  publication  was  an  innocent  or  a  criminal  one  ?  I  will  agree  it 
is  matter  for  your  consideration  what  was  the  immediate  effect  of 
publishing  this  libel  ?  Immediately  after  it  was  read,  some  copies  of 
it  were  thrown  out  to  the  mob  in  the  street,  who  called  out  for  more 
of  them,  and  more  of  them  were  thrown  out.  Here  is  a  fact,  which 
if  you  believe,  is  of  considerable  weight.  Gentlemen,  in  this  case 
there  has  been  no  justification,  nothing  has  been  said  to  palliate  the 
publication.  You  will  decide  on  the  matter  of  this  libel,  and  whether 
it  was  published  with  an  innocent  intention,  or  with  that  seditious 
view  charged  in  the  information. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  any  case  where  a  man  kills  another,  it 
is  prima  facie  evidence  of  malice,  but  it  admits  of  proof  to  shew  the 
manner  in  which  it  was  done,  and  whether  the  party  accused  killed 
the  person  with  a  felonious  intent,  or  whether  the  killing  was  by 
accident,  and  not  done  with  any  intention  of  taking  away  the  life  of 
the  party.  The  allusion  comes  home  ;  here  is  a  libel,  and  unless  it 
is  shewn  by  excuse  or  justification,  that  it  can  be  qualified,  the  law 
will  say  it  is  libellous. 

In  the  present  case,  the  learned  counsel  on  the  part  of  the  de- 
fendant has  endeavoured  to  set  your  hearts  and  passions  against  your 
consciences  and  judgments,  by  representing  that  the  liberty  of  the 
press  would  be  destroyed  by  a  verdict  against  the  defendant ;  but  I 
appeal  to  the  authority  to  whic^i  he  appealed  to  shew  what  the  liberty 
of  the  press  is,  "  It  is  employed  as  the  centinel  to  alarm  us  ;  we 
should  take  care  it  is  not  abused  and  converted  into  a  traitor ;  the 
instant  it  degenerates  into  licentiousness  it  must  be  punished.  That 
is  an  opinion  to  which  every  man  must  subscribe,  and  which  should 
be  as  lasting  as  the  constitution  itself.  Gentlemen,  I  have  trespassed 
too  long  upon  your  patience  ;  if  you  can  reconcile  it  to  your  oaths, 
that  Mr.  Rowan  did  not  publish  this  paper,  or  that  it  does  not  contain 
any  matter  libellous,  no  man  will  be  better  pleased  at  an  acquittal 
than  I  shall.  But  on  the  other  hand,  I  conjure  you  by  your  oaths, 
that  uninfluenced  by  power  or  prejudice,  favour  or  affection,  you 
discharge  your  duty  to  God,  your  country,  and  yourselves. 

Earl  Clonmel,  Lord  Chief- Justice Gentlemen  of  the  Jury.     At 

this  late  hour,   it  is  some   relief  to  the  bench  and  myself  that  the 


112  TRIAL  OF 

learned  gentlemen  of  the  bar,  on  both  sides,  have  so  ably  spoken  in 
this  case,  that  it  is  not  now  necessary  for  me  to  be  very  prolix  or 
voluminous  in  my  observations.  I  shall  therefore,  for  your  convenience 
and  that  of  the  bench,  contract  my  observations  within  as  short  a 
space  as,  in  the  discharge  of  my  duty,  I  think  I  ought  to  do.  Before 
I  go  into  the  particulai's  or  give  any  opinion  upon  the  publication, 
I  think  it  my  duty  to  state  and  fully  apprize  you  of  a  statute  which 
passed  the  last  session  of  parliament  in  this  kingdom,  by  which  it  is 
declared  and  enacted,  that  upon  all  trials  by  indictment  or  information, 
(which,  if  it  wanted  it,  is  an  additional  solemnization  of  this  mode  of 
trial)  where  issue  is  joined,  as  in  the  present  case,  for  making  or 
publishing  any  libel,  the  jury  may  give  a  verdict  of  guilty  or  not, 
upon  the  whole  matter  put  in  issue,  and  shall  not  be  required  or 
directed,  by  the  court,  to  find  gviilty  merely  upon  proof  of  publication, 
provided  the  court  shall,  according  to  their  discretion,  give  their 
opinion  upon  the  matter  in  issue,  in  like  manner  as  in  other  criminal 
cases.  I  shall  endeavour,  as  far  as  I  can,  to  conform  to  the  spirit 
and  words  of  the  law.  You  had  the  power  to  do  so  before,  perhaps 
you  had  the  right ;  this  act  of  parliament  is  a  legislative  exposition 
of  that  right,  and  you  will  exercise  it  as  becomes  you.  Though  the 
evidence  is  not  long  or  complicated,  yet  the  paper  is  both  long  and 
complicated,  therefore  I  will  adopt  that  order  which  has  been  made 
by  the  bar,  and  class  my  observations  under  four  heads,  being  the 
leading  objects  complained  of  in  this  information  : 

1st.  To  make  the  government  odious  by  endeavouring  to  disparage 
and  degrade  it. 

2d.  To  render  the  people  discontented,  not  only  with  the  govern- 
ment, but  the  constitution. 

3d.  To  solicit  the  people  to  take  up  arms,  to  intimidate  the 
legislature. 

4th.  Endeavouring,  by  tumult  and  by  force,  to  make  alterations 
in  the  constitution  and  government,  and  overturn  them  both. 

Gentlemen,  every  thing  which  I  shall  say  to  you,  will  fall  under 
one  of  these  heads.  The  information,  of  which  I  have  an  abstract  in 
my  hand,  is  that  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  maliciously  designing 
and  intending  to  excite  and  diifuse  among  the  subjects  of  this  realm, 
discontents,  jealousies,  and  suspicions  of  our  lord  the  king  and  his 
government,  and  to  raise  dangerous  seditions  within  this  kingdom  of 
Ireland,  and  to  draw  it  into  scandal  and  disgrace,  and  to  incite  the 
subjects  of  our  said  lord  the  king  to  attempt  by  force  and  violence  to 
make  alterations  in  the  state  and  constitution,  and  to  excite  the  sub- 
jects of  our  said  lord  the  king  to  overturn  the  established  constitution 
of  this  kingdom,  and  to  intimidate  the  legislature  of  this  kingdom 
by  an  armed  force,  on  the  16th  of  December,  in  the  32d  year  of  the 
king,  in  the  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  wickedly,  seditiously,  and 
maliciously,  did  publish  a  libel  of  and  concerning  the  government 
of  this  kingdom,  according  to  the  tenor  and  effect  following  : — "  Society 
of  United  Irishmen  to  the  Volunteers  of  Ireland,"  &c.  They  state 
themselves  to  be  a  self-created  body ;  they  state  it  vauntingly,  they 
say  they  have  no  authority  save  that  of  reason,  they  have  no  au- 
thority in  the  state.  I  will  therefore  consider  the  language  of  this 
paper  as  that  of  a  body  not  known  to  the  constitution,  calling  upon 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON   ROWAN.  113 

the  subjects  at  large,  though  they  scorn  to  call  them  so.  Let  me 
bring  to  your  minds,  that  one  gentleman  thought  the  address  was  to 
a  new  created  body  of  Volunteers  ;  another  gentleman  thought 
it  Avas  addressed  to  the  original  and  respectable  Volunteers ;  take  it 
either  way,  if  addressed  to  the  new  created  Volunteei's  it  was  for  the 
purposes  of  sedition,  and  if  to  the  old  original  Volunteers,  it  would  be 
still  more  dangerous  if  they  wei-e  to  succeed  with  them  in  altering 
the  constitution  by  force.  It  is  stated,  "  William  Dreunan,  President, 
Arcliibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  Secretary."  This  is  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that  Mr.  Rowan  was  acquainted  with  eveiy  part  of  the  paper ; 
it  professes  upon  the  face  of  it  that  he  was  secretary  of  this  society. 
I  shall  come,  by  and  by,  to  the  question  of  publication  ;  if  he  pub- 
lished it,  there  does  arise  a  presumption  that  he  knew  what  he 
published  :  I  go  no  farther  with  that  observation.  He  says,  "  Citizen 
soldiei's,  you  first  took  up  arms  to  protect  your  country  from  foreign 
enemies,  and  from  domestic  disturbances.  For  the  same  purposes  it  now 
becomes  necessary  that  you  should  resume  them."  Citizen  soldiers, 
you  first  took  up  arms,  that  is,  in  my  judgment,  you  took  them  up 
originally  for  these  two  purposes,  it  now  becomes  necessaiy  you  should 
resume  them  for  those  purposes.  "  A  proclamation  has  been  issued  in 
England  for  embodying  the  militia,  and  one  in  Ireland  for  repressing 
seditious  associations.  In  consequence  of  both  these  proclamations, 
it  is  reasonable  to  apprehend  danger  from  abx'oad  and  danger  at  home." 
The  printed  paper  has  been  proved  and  read  ;  it  says — "For  whence 
bat  from  apprehended  danger,  are  those  menacing  preparations  for  war 
drawn  through  the  sti'eets  of  this  capital,  {inuendo,  menacing  the  city 
of  Dublin)  or  whence  if  not  to  create  that  internal  commotion  which 
was  not  found,  to  shake  that  credit  which  was  not  affected,  to  blast 
that  Volunteer  honour  which  was  hitherto  inviolate."  In  my  opinion 
these  words  fall  directly  within  one  of  those  heads  I  have  stated,  as 
rendering  odious  to  the  king's  subjects  the  proclamation  as  insin- 
cere and  hypoci'itical,  as  creating  internal  commotions,  which  it 
intended  to  restrain,  and  that  embarrassment,  which  was  not 
found  ;  that  it  went  further  to  the  ruin  of  the  country,  shaking 
the  credit  which  was  not  affected,  and  blasting  the  Volunteer 
honour  which  was  hitherto  inviolate  ;  as  if  it  was  said  to  be 
blasted  by  the  executive  government.  This  was,  in  my  mind,  a  charge 
of  having  created  disorder  not  before  existing,  of  shaking  the  credit  of 
the  country  contrary  to  the  duty  of  government ;  and  blasting  that 
Volunteer  honour,  which  until  this  instrument  appeared  never  was 
violated.  It  is  charging  them,  in  my  opinion,  as  insidiously  as  the 
meanest  mind  can  conceive,  with  perilling  in  a  most  vital  part,  the  peace 
and  the  credit  of  the  country.  Whether  it  was  calculated  to  inflame 
the  minds  of  the  subjects,  will  be  for  your  consideration,  on  your  oaths. 
It  says,  "  These  were  rumours  and  suggestions  which  agitated  our  old 
men,  our  women,  and  children."  What  is  that  ?  Why,  this  is  all  an 
imposition  of  government,  they  wanted  to  frighten  you  by  a  bugbear. 
"  Whatever  be  the  motive,  or  from  whatever  quarter  it  arises, 
alarm  has  arisen ;  and  you.  Volunteers  of  Ireland,  are  tlierefore 
summoned  to  arms  at  the  instance  of  government,  as  well  as  by  the 
responsibility  attached  to  your  character,  and  the  permanent  obligations 
of  your  institution."  Here  was  another  im])utation  upon  government; 

I 


114  TRIAL   OF 

they  have  raised  apprehensions  and  summoned  these  persons  to  take 
up  arms.  It  goes  on  and  says,  "  We  will  not  at  this  day  quote 
authorities  for  the  right  of  using  arms ;  but  we  will  cry  aloud  even 
amidst  the  storm  raised  by  the  witchcraft  of  a  proclamation."  "  We 
will  cry  aloud  in  the  storm."  Where  or  how  was  it  raised  ?  It  says, 
"  By  the  witchcraft  of  a  proclamation."  Here  was  an  imputation 
charged  upon  the  proclamations  of  government,  as  raising  a  storm  in 
the  country.  It  says,  "  To  your  formation  was  owing  the  peace  and 
protection  of  this  island,  to  your  relaxation  has  been  owing  its  relapse 
into  impotence  and  insignificance ;"  that  is,  when  you  were  in  arms 
this  island  was  protected  and  in  peace,  and  appeared  to  be  of 
consideration ;  to  your  relaxation  has  been  owing  its  impotence  and 
insignificance,  therefore  it  can  only  be  raised  again  into  importance 
by  your  taking  up  arms.  If  that  is  the  impression  of  this  paragraph, 
you  will  consider  whether  this  is  a  libel  upon  the  government  or  not. 
It  was  a  publication  not  only  to  the  people  of  this  kingdom,  but  to  all 
the  enemies  of  this  nation,  saying  that  this  country  was  in  a  state  of 
impotence  and  insignificance.  It  goes  on  and  says,  "  That  to  your 
renovation  must  be  owing  its  future  freedom  and  its  pi'esent  tran- 
quillity. You  are  therefore  summoned  to  arms,  in  order  to  preserve 
your  country  in  that  guarded  quiet,  which  may  secure  it  from  external 
hostility,  and  to  maintain  that  internal  regimen  throughout  the  land, 
which  superseding  a  notorious  police  or  a  suspected  militia,  may 
preserve  the  blessings  of  peace  by  a  vigilant  preparation  for  war."  It 
is  impossible  in  a  work  of  this  kind,  were  it  twice  as  libellous  as  it  is, 
if  it  could  be  so,  that  it  should  not  be  mixed  with  some  pi'ofessions, 
some  parts  better  than  others  ;  it  must  profess  something  to  be  received. 
But  it  complains  of  a  police  and  a  militia  that  is  suspected.  It  says, 
if  you  do  not  supersede  a  police  and  militia,  you  cannot  preserve  the 
blessings  of  peace.  I  say,  therefore,  in  my  opinion,  no  woi'ds  can  be 
more  inflammatory  than  these  are.  You  are  charging  the  police  as  an 
evil  sort  of  an  establishment ;  it  is  called  a  "  notorious  police,"  and 
the  militia  as  consisting  of  persons  proper  to  be  suspected,  not  to  be 
confided  in.  It  says,  "  You  must  preserve  the  blessings  of  peace  by 
a  vigilant  preparation  for  war.  Citizen  Soldiers,  to  arms !  take  up 
the  shield  of  freedom  and  the  pledges  of  peace."  TVHiat  does  that 
say  ?  Your  arms  only  are  the  shield  of  freedom  and  pledges  of  peace ; 
therefore  take  up  arms.  "  Peace  the  motive  and  end  of  your  virtuous 
institution.  War,  an  occasional  duty,  ought  never  to  be  made 
an  occupation.  Every  man  should  become  a  soldier  in  defence  of  his 
rights."  Was  it  necessary  to  call  them  together ;  if  their  rights  were 
not  attacked,  why  invite  them  to  collect  themselves  to  defend  that 
right  ?  It  says,  "  No  man  ought  to  continue  a  soldier  for  oflfending  the 
rights  of  others.  The  sacrifice  of  life  in  the  service  of  our  country 
is  a  duty  much  too  honourable  to  be  entrusted  to  mercenaries."  They 
assume,  or  endeavour  to  assume,  the  power  of  the  sword,  and 
degrading  the  king's  forces  from  that  power  with  which  they  are 
entrusted,  it  says,  the  duty  we  suggest  is  too  honourable  for  mercena- 
ries :  Is  not  this  saying,  do  not  trust  to  the  military,  and  at  that  time 
when  by  public  authority  it  was  declared  that  the  country  was 
in  danger.  The  Volunteers,  in  that  paper,  were  called  upon  to  stand 
to  their  arms.     Every  expression  of  solicitation   and  stimulation  is 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  115 

used.  The  Volunteers  were  called  upon  to  resume  their  arms  ;  the 
nation  was  impotent  and  insignificant  without  it.  Citizens  to  arms  ! 
you  are  summoned  to  arms :  take  up  arms  in  spite  of  a  notorious 
police  and  a  suspected  militia,  and  in  spite  of  two  proclamations. 
You  are  to  do  your  duty  to  preserve  good  order  in  your  vicinage,  in 
spite  of  a  police  and  fencible  militia,  for  they  resist  peace,  and 
you  are  to  do  your  duty  in  spite  of  those  constituted  authorities. 
"  It  is  only  by  the  military  array  of  men  in  whom  they  confide,  whom 
they  have  been  accustomed  to  revere  as  guardians  of  domestic  peace, 
the  protectors  of  their  liberties  and  lives,  that  the  present  agitation 
of  the  people  can  be  stilled,  that  tumult  and  licentiousness  can  be 
repressed,  obedience  secui'ed  to  existing  law,  and  a  calm  confidence 
diffused  through  the  public  mind,  in  the  speedy  resurrection  of  a  free 
constitution,  of  liberty  and  of  equality — words  which  we  use  for  an 
opportunity  of  repelling  calumny."  That  is,  it  is  only  by  a  military 
array  of  men  you  can  have  a  Free  Constitution ;  that  is  as  much  as  to 
say,  the  people  of  Ireland  have  not  a  Free  Constitution.  Wliether  that 
be  the  meaning  of  the  paper,  as  charged  in  the  information,  will  be 
for  your  consideration.  The  words  Liberty  and  Equality  ai'e 
introduced  for  an  opportunity,  say  they,  of  repelling  calumny  ! 
Where  did  it  come  from  ?  Why  did  the  Society  find  it  necessary  to 
repel  it  ?  How  did  they  repel  it  ?  By  the  words  Liberty  and  Equality, 
which  they  think  proper  to  explain  in  this  way.  "  By  liberty  we 
never  understood  unlimited  freedom,  nor  by  equality,  the  levelling  of 
property  or  the  destruction  of  subordination.  This  is  a  calumny 
invented  by  that  faction,  or  that  gang,  which  misrepresents  the  king 
to  the  people,  and  the  people  to  the  king ;  traduces  one  half  of  the 
nation  to  cajole  the  other,  and  by  keeping  up  distrust  and  division, 
wishes  to  continue  the  proud  arbitrators  of  the  fortune  and  fate  of 
Ireland."  Here,  he  says,  a  Faction  or  Gang  misrepresents  the  king 
to  the  people.  Is  not  this  an  aspersion,  endeavouring  to  render  the 
governing  power  odious  ?  What  is  this  gang  which  he  says  misre- 
presents the  king  to  the  people  ?  I  leave  you  to  determine.  Why  is 
the  misrepresentation  ?  The  paper  insinuates  for  the  purposes  of 
power  which  they  abuse.  "  Liberty  is  the  exercise  of  all  our  rights, 
natural  and  political,  secured  to  us  and  our  posterity  by  a  real 
representation  of  the  people ;  and  equality  is  the  extension  of  the 
constituent  to  the  fullest  dimensions  of  the  constitution,  of  the  elective 
franchise  to  the  whole  body  of  the  people,  to  the  end  that  government, 
which  is  collective  power,  may  be  guided  by  collective  will."  These 
are  terms,  gentlemen,  which  yovx  may  probably  understand,  though 
they  are  conveyed  in  an  unascertained  and  declamatory  stile.  Gen- 
tlemen of  the  jury,  at  the  time  that  the  qualification  of  a  voter  to 
give  his  suffrage  to  a  candidate  for  a  seat  in  parliament  was  originally 
ascertained,  forty  shillings  was  equivalent  then,  as  it  is  calculated,  to 
forty  pounds  of  our  present  currency ;  fi'om  the  time  of  Henry  I.  to 
Queen  Anne,  the  value  of  money  had  advanced  in  a  ratio  of  one  to 
twelve  ;  fi'om  that  time  to  this  it  has  been  as  one  to  twenty ;  so  that 
a  man  then  having  an  estate  of  twenty  shillings  a  year  was  equal  to 
a  man's  having  an  estate  of  twenty  pound  of  our  present  money. 
The  elective  franchise  never  was  in  the  whole  body  of  the  people  in 


116  TRIAL    OF 

Great  Britain  or  Ireland.*  It  says,  "  That  legislation  may  originate 
from  public  reason,  keep  pace  with  public  improvement,  and  terminate 
in  public  liappiness — If  our  constitution  be  imperfect,  nothing  but 
a  reform  in  representation  will  rectify  its  abuses."  In  figurative 
abstracted  expressions  it  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  the  meaning  ;  although 
you  have  an  impression  of  the  object.  This  may  be  a  very  innocent 
proposition ;  but  to  me  it  may  be  a  veiy  wicked  one,  when  ap])lied  to 
be  obtained  in  the  manner  here  pointed  out :  it  says,  "  nothing  but  a 
Reform  will  rectify  its  abuses — nothing  but  a  Reform  will  perpetuate 
its  blessings ;"  and  then  it  goes  on  and  says,  "  We  now  address  you 
as  Citizens,"  &c.  Not  a  word  of  subjects  from  beginning  to  end — 
that  is  a  word  driven  out  of  fashion,  at  least  in  this  publication — 
*'  Seduction  made  them  soldiers,  but  nature  made  them  men."  What 
Iiad  this  charge  to  the  soldiers  to  do  with  a  parliamentary  reform  ?  I 
quarrel  not  with  the  composition,  it  is  not  my  duty,  but  in  my  mind 
here  is  a  direct  charge  upon  the  military,  that  they  were  imposed 
upon,  that  seduction  had  made  them  soldiers.  The  sword  is  put  into 
the  hands  of  the  sovereign,  he  is  vested  with  it  by  the  constitution, 
and  yet  this  paper  says,  it  was  made  an  instrument  of  seduction. 
"  We  address  you  without  any  authority,  save  that  of  reason,  and  if 
we  obtain  the  coincidence  of  public  opinion,  it  is  neither  by  force  nor 
stratagem,  for  we  have  no  power  to  terrify,  no  artifice  to  cajole,  no 
fund  to  seduce — here  we  sit  without  mace  or  beadle,  neither  a  mys- 
tery, nor  a  craft,  nor  a  corporation." 

Here  they  acknowledge  they  had  no  proper  authority  to  call  the 
people  to  arms,  which  they  assume  to  do  by  that  publication ;  they 
avow  that  this  society  did  make  no  corporate  body  or  legal  authority. 
They  add,  "  In  four  words  lies  all  our  power,  UNIVERSAL 
EMANCIPATION  and  REPRESENTATIVE  LEGISLATURE. 
Yet  we  are  confident  that  on  the  pivot  of  this  principle,  a  convention, 
still  less  a  society,  less  still  a  single  man,  will  be  able  first  to  move 
and  then  to  raise  the  world."  I  rest  here  a  little  to  consider  what 
idea  this  writer  must  have  of  the  power  of  the  paper,  when  a  single 
man  will  be  able  first  to  move  and  then  to  raise  the  world ;  one  of  the 
charges  is,  that  this  paper  intended  to  stir  the  people  to  arms,  it  is  an 
admission  here,  a  profession,  a  vaunt,  that  the  society,  nay  less,  a 
single  man,  may  move  and  then  raise  the  world ;  the  expression  is 
not  one  kingdom,  but  to  raise  the  world.  If  any  thing  like  it  has 
happened,  it  is  a  miserable  consideration.  "  We  therefore  wish  for 
Catholic  emancipation  without  any  modification,  but  still  we  consider 
this  necessary  enfranchisement  as  merely  the  portal  to  the  temple  of 
national  freedom;  wide  as  this  entrance  is — wide  enovigh  to  admit 
three  millions,  it  is  narrow,  when  compared  to  the  capacity  and  com- 
prehension of  our  beloved  principle,  which  takes  in  every  individual 
of  the  Irish  nation."  It  is  but  a  portal  to  freedom :  what,  unqualified 
emancipation!  It  is  for  you  to  consider  what  the  beloved  principle 
is.  Emancipating  three  millions  is  opening  a  portal — what  portal? 
one  which  takes  in  every  individual  of  the  Irish  nation — where? 
into  power,  into  the  elective  franchise;  it  embraces  all  that  think, 
and  feels  for  all  that  suffer.  "  The  Catholic  cause  is  subordinate  to 
our  cause,  and  included  in   it,   for  as  United  Irishmen,  we  adhere  to 

*  Vide  Proline  Brc\ .  Pari.  red.  p.  187.  &  2  Whitclock  p.  90.  contra. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMLLTON  KOWAN.  117 

no  sect  but  to  society,  to  no  creed  but  Christianity,  to  no  party  but 
tlje  whole  people.  In  the  sincerity  of  our  souls  do  we  desire 
Catholic  emancipation :  but  were  it  obtained  to-morrow,  to-morrow 
would  we  go  on,  as  we  do  to-day,  in  the  pursuit  of  that  reform 
which  would  still  be  wanting  to  ratify  their  liberties  as  well  as  our 
own."  You,  Roman  Catholics,  emancipated  to-morrow,  will  not  stop 
lis,  we  will  go  on,  and  unless  you  go  on  with  us,  it  will  not  be 
sufficient  to  establish  yovn'  liberty.  "  For  both  these  purposes,  it 
appears  necessary  that  provincial  conventions  should  assemble  prepa- 
ratory to  the  convention  of  the  Protestant  people.  The  delegates  of 
the  Catholic  body  are  not  justified  in  communicating  with  individuals 
or  even  bodies  of  inferior  authority,  and  therefore  an  assembly 
of  a  similar  nature  and  organization  is  necessaiy  to  establish  an 
intercourse  of  sentiment,  an  uniformity  of  conduct,  an  united  cause 
and  an  united  nation.  If  a  convention  on  the  one  part  does  not  soon 
follow,  and  is  not  soon  connected  with  that  on  the  other,  the  common 
cause  will  split  into  the  partial  interest ;  the  people  will  relax  into 
inattention  and  inertness,  the  union  of  affection  and  exertion  will 
dissolve,  and  too  probably  some  local  insurrection,  instigated  by  the 
malignity  of  our  common  enemy,  may  commit  the  character  and 
risque  the  tranquillity  of  the  island,  which  can  be  obviated  only  by 
the  influence  of  an  assembly  arising  from,  assimilated  with  people, 
and  whose  spirit  may  be,  as  it  were,  knit  with  the  soul  of  the  nation : 
unless  the  sense  of  the  Protestant  people  be,  on  their  part,  as  fairly 
collected  and  as  judiciously  directed,  unless  individual  exertion 
consolidates  into  collective  strength,  vmless  the  pai'ticles  unite  into 
mass,  we  may  perhaps  serve  some  person,  or  some  party  for  a  little, 
but  the  public  not  at  all ;  the  nation  is  neither  insolent  nor  rebellious 
nor  seditious ;  Avhile  it  knows  its  rights  it  is  unwilling  to  manifest  its 
powers ;  it  would  rather  supplicate  administration  to  anticipate 
I'evolution  by  a  well-timed  reform,  and  to  save  their  country  in 
mercy  to  themselves." 

Gentlemen,  this  last  paragraph  is  a  menace ;  for  if  the  proposal 
made  is  not  accepted,  a  revolution  is  threatened.  The  paper  in 
question  proceeds  in  the  following  w^ords :  "The  15th  of  February 
approaches,  a  day  ever  memorable  in  the  annals  of  this  country  as  the 
birth-day  of  New  Ireland ;  let  parochial  meetings  be  held  as  soon  as 
possible ;  let  each  parish  return  delegates.  Let  the  sense  of  Ulster 
be  again  declared  from  Dungannon,  on  a  day  auspicious  to  union, 
peace  and  freedom,  and  the  spirit  of  the  North  will  again  become  the 
spirit  of  the  nation.  The  civil  assembly  ought  to  claim  the  attention 
of  the  military  associations."  The  civil  assembly  was  to  be  attended 
by  military  forces ;  was  not  the  intention  to  alter  the  constitution  ? 
"  We  have  addressed  you,  citizen  soldiers,  on  this  subject,  from 
a  belief  that  your  body,  uniting  conviction  with  zeal,  and  zeal  with 
activity,  may  have  much  influence  over  your  countrymen,  your 
relations  and  friends."  Armed  citizens  was  the  favourite  object  that 
was  to  be  gained ;  it  says,  "  We  presume  not  at  present  to  fill  up  the 
plan  or  pre-occupy  the  mode  of  its  execution,  we  have  thought  it  our 
duty  to  speak.  Answer  us  by  actions.  You  have  taken  time 
for  consideration.  Fourteen  long  years  are  elapsed  since  tlie  rise  of 
your  associations."      This  part  is  very  material,  it  says  to  the  people. 


1  1  8  TRIAL   OF 

"  take  up  your  arms,"  and  it  says,  "  answer  us  by  actions."  "What  are 
the  actions  of  men  in  arms  ?  Armed  associations  will  support  the 
different  meetings.  We  have  spoken  out  to  you :  answer  us  with 
your  actions.  "  Fourteen  long  years  are  elapsed  since  the  rise  of  your 
associations;  and  in  1782  did  you  imagine  that  in  1792  this  nation 
would  still  remain  uni'epresented  ?  How  many  nations,  in  this 
interval,  have  gotten  the  start  of  Ireland?"  How  far  Ireland  has 
been  backward  in  the  number  of  good  subjects,  have  they  asked  ? 
No.  The  question  here  is,  how  many  nations  have  gotten  the  start  of 
Ireland?  What  is  meant  by  this  start?  What  nations  are  there, 
that  have  in  fourteen  years  advanced  more  than  ourselves  in  happiness  ? 
None.  What  actions  of  other  nations  would  that  publication  recom- 
mend to  Ireland  to  follow  ?  It  concludes  with  this  sentence  ;  "  How 
many  of  our  countrymen  have  sunk  into  the  grave  ?"  Gentlemen,  I 
have  gone  through  the  paper  mentioned  in  the  information,  and  made 
such  observations  as  I  thought  necessary.  I  do,  as  it  is  my  duty,  tell 
you,  that  I  think  it  deserves  the  appellations  given  to  it  by  the 
information.  I  take  it  to  be  a  scandalous  and  seditious  libel ;  but  that 
is  my  opinion  only.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is  you  who  are  to 
decide  the  question,  whether  you  think  it  is  a  scandalous  or  seditious 
libel.     The  verdict  will  be  yours,  and  not  mine. 

Gentlemen,  in  order  to  support  this  prosecution,  the  first  witness 
that  was  produced  is  John  Lyster ;  he  told  you  [here  his  lordship 
stated  the  testimony  of  Lyster,  as  given  upon  his  direct  examination.] 
On  his  cross-examination  he  gave  an  account  of  the  manner  in  which 
he  communicated  this  matter  to  Mr.  Kemmis,  the  Crown  Solicitor ; 
said  he  would  communicate  to  him  what  he  knew ;  produced  the 
paper  that  was  read  in  part  by  Mr.  Rowan.  Said  he  did  not  know 
where  Mr.  Rowan  stopt  reading.  Says  he,  the  witness,  did  not 
purchase  his  commission  as  ensign  in  the  army ;  got  it  through 
the  interest  of  Lady  Hobart,  his  relation.  The  witness  attested  two 
bonds,  there  was  an  issue  directed  to  try  whether  those  bonds  were 
genuine.  Was  asked  whether  he  was  examined  as  a  Avitness  at  that 
trial ;  believes  he  was  examined  as  a  witness ;  the  issue  was  tried 
before  Mr.  Justice  Boyd ;  there  was  an  award  of  £200  out  of  £800. 
Says  Mr.  Lambert  filed  a  bill  against  him  about  a  note  of  £147 
which  Peter  Hamilton  passed  to  witness.  Attempts  were  made 
to  impeach  the  credit  of  this  witness  upon  three  or  four  gi'ovmds : 
1st.  He  Avas  a  witness  to  the  bonds  which  were  alledged  to  have  been 
forged — an  unfair  ti'ansaction.  2d.  That  he  got  the  note  from  a 
person  alledged  to  be  insane.  3d.  That  he  had  got  a  commission. 
4th.  That  it  was  not  probable  he  made  this  memorandum.  I  can 
only  say,  he  has  given  a  rational  account  of  this  business ;  but  it  is 
your  duty  to  judge  of  his  credit ;  it  is  my  duty  to  make  observations, 
which  it  is  your  duty  to  reject  if  they  are  not  well  founded.  He  says 
he  is  an  ensign  in  the  40th  regiment.  He  got  the  commission 
through  the  interest  of  a  relation ;  and  it  appears  the  arbitrators 
did  give  his  brother  since,  part  of  the  demand,  by  which,  if  it 
weighed  a  feather  in  the  case,  they  thought  the  bond  was  not 
a  forgery.  Says  it  was  usual  to  take  memorandums  on  getting  papers 
of  this  kind.  »Says  there  was  about  150  or  200  Volunteers  in  the 
room.     Was  Lyster's  evidence  not  satisfactory  to  you,  he  was  the 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  119 

only  witness  to  this  great  part  of  the  case.     This  observation  has  been 
made:   "What!   150  persons  present,  and  not  one  of  them  comes 

forward  to  attest  the  innocence  of  Mr.  Rowan  !"*  *  * 

*******  ** 

********* 

But  the  next  witness  does,  in  my  apprehension,  as  far  as  he  goes, 
confirm  every  word  said  by  Lyster.  Morton  says,  he  saw  numbers 
of  persons  in  the  room  doing  some  business  at  the  table.  Saw  Mr. 
Tandy  and  Mr.  Rowan  in  the  room.  The  witness  had  seen  them 
before  that  day.  He  identified  Mr.  Rowan  in  court.  He  appeared 
to  take  an  active  part  in  the  business.  Witness  got  admission  into 
the  gallery.  He  saw  a  bundle  of  papers  on  the  table,  several  were 
distributed  to  the  mob  in  the  street,  who  called  out  for  more.  The 
witness  got  a  paper,  which  he  gave  to  a  person  who  said  lie  had  lost 
it.  Witness  said  he  heard  part  of  a  paper  read,  containing  the  words 
"  Citizen  soldiers,  to  arms."  If  it  stood  upon  this  man's  evidence, 
here  was  not  evidence  of  publication  ;  and  if  it  rested  upon  him  alone, 
you  should  acquit  the  defendant ;  but  as  corroborating  the  testimony 
of  Lyster,  it  is  very  material.  If  the  counsel  for  the  defendant 
intended  to  discredit  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution,  they  have 
failed.  A  gentleman  from  Galway,  a  Mr.  Blake,  was  produced,  who 
says  he  now  lives  in  Dublin,  gave  his  evidence  as  to  Lyster,  which  I 
shall  come  to  by-and-by.  Morton's  credit  was  not  questioned. 
Morton,  on  his  cross-examination,  said,  he  was  an  apprentice  to  a 
gold-beater — believes  the  persons  he  saw  at  the  room  in  Cope-street 
were  in  the  uniform  of  the  old  Volunteers — is  sure  he  saw  Mr.  Rowan 
there — some  of  the  persons  wore  scarlet  with  different  coloured  facings 
— witness  said  he  could  see  from  the  gallery  what  was  done  at  the 
table.  He  gave  the  paper,  the  day  he  received  it,  to  a  person  in  the 
house  where  the  Dublin  Journal  is  printed.  The  paper  was  then 
read  which  I  have  stated  to  you,  and  you  have  heard  so  much  of. 
Here  the  prosecution  Avas  rested.  On  the  part  of  the  defendant  was 
produced  Mr.  Francis  Blake,  to  show  that  John  Lyster  was  a  person 
not  to  be  credited  upon  his  oath.  Mi\  Blake  w^as  asked  whether 
Lyster  was  a  man  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath  ;  he  answered  he  could 
not  say  he  is  not  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath ;  but  he  w^ould  hesitate. 
The  witness  was  produced  to  show  that  Lyster  should  .not  be  believed 
upon  his  oath,  but  Blake  said  no  such  thing.  In  a  question,  whether 
the  oath  of  one  man  ought  to  be  received,  where  another  man  swears 
he  ought  not  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath ;  then  you  would  have  one 
man's  oath  against  another.  The  credit  of  Lyster  is  not  affected  by 
what  Mr.  Smith  the  second  witness  has  said.  The  third  witness  to 
this  point  was  Mrs.  Hatchell ;  she  said  she  knew  John  Lyster ;  she 
was  asked  whether  he  was  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath  ?  she  said, 
according  to  her  opinion,  he  was  not  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath  ; 
she  said  the  witness,  John,  had  prevailed  on  his  brother  to  quit  his 
wife,  and  said  he  Avas  married  to  another  woman,  which  was  not 
truth — said  she  heard  declarations  from  John's  elder  brother,  and  that 

*  The  editor  is  here  under  a  necessity  of  introducing  an  hiatus,  the  printer 
having  refused  to  print  tiiis  part  according  to  the  notes  furnished  to  hiui  by  the 
editor.     (Original  note  by  Mr.  Rowan  to  his  own  Edition  of  this  Trial.) 


120  TRIAL   OF 

was  one  of  the  reasons  wliy  she  said  the  witness,  John,  ought  not  to 
be  believed  upon  his  oath.  In  the  usual  course  of  evidence  no  proof 
has  been  adduced  to  prove  that  the  witness  Lyster  ought  not  to  be 
believed  upon  his  oath. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  think  this  is  the  evidence  on  both  sides, 
as  correctly  as  I  have  been  able  to  take  it.  As  to  the  fact  of  publi- 
cation, it  is  my  duty  to  tell  you,  there  is  very  strong  evidence  that 
Mr.  Rowan  did  publish  that  paper,  and  did  publish  it  knowing  what 
he  published ;  and  as  to  the  other  matter,  whether  it  is  a  libel,  I  have 
told  you  I  thought  the  matter  libellous — libellous  in  the  extreme  ;  T 
now  tell  you,  that  is  my  opinion.  If  you,  upon  the  whole  matter, 
believe,  upon  your  oaths,  that  Mr.  Rowan  published  the  paper,  and 
with  the  criminal  intention  stated  in  the  information,  and  for  the 
purposes  ascribed  to  him,  you  ought  to  find  him  guilty,  for  I  think 
the  paper  entitled  to,  and  deserves  the  appellation  annexed  to  it — it 
is  a  seditious  libel.  If  you  believe  he  did  not  publish  it ;  if  you 
disbelieve  the  evidences  which  have  been  uncontradicted  ;  if  you 
believe  he  published  it  by  mistake  or  ignorance,  not  meaning  to 
publish  this  paper,  which  might  happen,  but  of  which  there  is  not  a 
tittle  of  evidence  in  this  case,  you  will  find  him  not  guilty.  I  will 
state  this  direction  in  other  words  ;  if  you  fintl  him  guilty,  it  must  be, 
because  you  believe  in  your  consciences  he  published  it,  and  that  you 
believe  the  inuendoes  are  true ;  meaning,  as  well  as  you  understand 
this  paper,  reading  it  separately  or  collectively  together,  that  he 
published  it  with  a  criminal  intention  ;  that  is,  adopting  its  sense  and 
meaning.  If  you  acquit  him,  it  must  be,  because  you  do  not  believe 
he  published  it,  or  that  he  did  not  mean  to  adopt  its  sense  and 
meaning.  I  must  tell  you,  his  thinking  it  not  mischievous,  is  not  a 
reason  why  you  should  acquit  him.  His  thinking  he  was  doing  right, 
if  you  believe  the  intention  of  the  paper  was  to  raise  forces  to  inti- 
midate the  legislature,  which  is  the  great  object  complained  of,  though 
he  was  thinking  he  was  right  to  accomplish  his  object  by  every  means, 
will  not  be  an  excuse  ;  that  would  lead  to  the  acquittal  of  every  felon 
upon  earth.  If  a  man  was  accused  of  a  felony,  and  he  thought  he 
was  doing  a  right  thing  to  murder  his  neighbour,  thinking  he  was 
doing  a  right  thing  would  be  no  excuse  to  him.  If  the  defendant's 
object  was  merely  a  reform  in  parliament,  yet  if  he  endeavoured  by 
foi'ce,  or  by  illegal  means,  to  obtain  it,  you  ought  to  find  him  guilty. 
I  have  stated  the  facts,  and  made  such  observations  as  occur  to  me  to 
be  necessary — I  have  stated  the  point  of  crimination,  and  I  now  leave 
to  you  to  dispose  of  the  question  ;  and  have  not  the  least  doubt  you 
will  do  as  becomes  you.  If  I  have  been  defective,  I  shall  be  corrected 
by  my  brethern,  whom  you  will  hear  with  pleasure  and  information. 

The  honourable  Mr.  Justice  Boyd. — Gentlemen  of  the  Jury.  My 
Lord  Clonmel  has  so  fully  stated  the  information,  it  is  not  necessary 
for  me  to  repeat  it.  With  regard  to  his  observations,  I  adopt  them 
every  one  in  the  same  degree  of  latitude  in  which  he  delivered  them : 
I  think  the  paper  deserves  the  appellation  in  the  information ;  it  is  a 
false,  scandalous,  and  malicious  libel.  My  Lord  Clonmel  mentioned 
an  act  of  parliament  which  was  made  upon  its  being  thought  the 
judges  went  too  far  in  former  cases,  it  gives  you  poAver  to  decide  on 
questions  of  this  kind,   wlicthci-  libel    or   not  ;  you    are   to  give  your 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON   ROWAN.  121 

opinion  on  the  whole  of  the  matter,  and  therefore  you  are  not  bound 
to  find  according  to  our  direction.  My  opinion  concurs  with  Loi'd 
Clonuiel's,  that  the  paper  is  a  libel.  If  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
are  of  a  different  opinion,  you  are  not  bound  to  go  by  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  in  point  of  law,  in  a  case  of  libel.  You  have  heard  the 
evidence,  and  the  first  question  which  arises  is,  whether  there  was 
any  publication  of  this  paper  by  Mr.  Rowan  ?  If  you  are  of  opinion 
that  Mr.  Rowan  did  not  publish  the  paper  in  question,  you  must 
acquit  him.  If  you  think  it  is  not  a  libel,  even  though  he  did  publish 
it,  you  ought  to  acquit  him.  If  he  published  it  by  mistake  or  igno- 
rantly,  that  is  a  ground  for  acquittal.  But  his  own  opinion  of  what 
he  thought  right,  even  in  obtaining  the  emancipation  of  the  Catholics, 
or  a  parliamentary  reform  by  force  of  arms  ;  however  laudable  he 
thought  himself,  the  intention  of  the  publication  was  a  criminal  one, 
and  in  that  case  you  ought  to  find  him  guilty. 

The  honourable  Mr.  Justice  Downes. — Gentlemen  of  the  Jury. 
The  few  words  I  shall  trouble  you  with,  will  be  in  concurrence  with 
what  you  have  heard  from  the  rest  of  the  court.  The  fact  of  publi- 
cation depends  upon  the  evidence  you  have  heard,  and  the  degree  of 
credit  you  will  give  to  the  witness.  I  agree  in  the  observations  upon 
Lyster's  testimony,  no  degree  of  difficulty  occurs  in  contradicting  him, 
if  Avhat  he  said  was  false.  If  you  do  believe  that  Lyster  deserves 
credit,  the  publication  of  this  paper  is  pi'oved  to  have  been  made, 
industriously,  by  the  defendant,  knowing  its  contents ;  and  under 
such  circumstances  as,  I  should  not  hesitate  to  say,  adopted  its  con- 
tents. If  3^ou  believe  it  was  published  under  these  circumstances 
which  you  have  heard,  it  wall  be  for  your  consideration  to  determine, 
whether  it  be  a  libel,  and  with  what  intent  it  was  published  ?  I 
concur  in  the  observations  upon  its  contents,  and  I  am  unable  to  read 
it  without  being  of  opinion  that  the  tendency  of  this  paper  is  to 
excite  to  arms  the  persons  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  making  alterations  in  the  government  of  this  kingdom,  as 
charged  in  the  introductory  part  of  the  information.  If  you  believe 
the  account  of  the  mode  of  publication  given  by  Lyster,  and  believe 
the  defendant  adopted  this  paper  as  his  act,  you  are  to  look  for  the 
intent  upon  the  paper  itself,  and  on  which  you  are  to  decide.  If  you 
believe  that  the  general  tendency  of  it  was  to  excite  tumult  in  the 
country,  and  to  call  to  arms  any  description  of  men,  no  doubt  can  be 
entertained,  that  it  is  libellous,  and  it  must  be  imputed  to  the  defen- 
dant, he  having  given  no  evidence  of  a  contrary  intention.  To 
attempt  to  effect  by  force  any  alteration  in  the  constitution  of  the 
country,  or  to  overawe  the  legislature  by  force — any  such  act  of 
force  would  be  high  treason ;  and  to  publish  a  paper  to  excite  people 
to  do  such  an  act,  no  man  can  doubt  is  a  libel.  If  you  do  think  such 
was  the  tendency  of  the  paper  in  question,  you  cannot  hesitate  to  find 
the  defendant  guilty.  There  was  no  evidence  to  shew  the  tendency 
of  the  paper  was  of  a  contrary  nature.  The  intentions  of  the  pub- 
lisher are  deducible  from  the  paper  itself;  if  it  was  the  purpose  of 
the  publisher  of  the  paper  to  attain  an  alteration  in  the  state  by  force, 
it  was  a  criminal  intention,  however  desirable  the  alteration  might 
be  supposed  to  be,  or  whether  the  object  sought  for  was  in  itself 
right,  or  not.     I  will  not  trouble  you  any  farther.     I  have  given  the 


122  TRIAL   OF 

case  the  best  consideration  I  am  able.  You  will  decide  upon  it 
according  to  your  oaths,  and  I  have  no  doubt  the  defendant  will  have 
every  justice  in  your  hands. 

The  jury  withdrew,  taking  with  them  the  printed  paper  which  had 
been  read  in  court,  and  in  about  ten  minutes  returned,  and  brought 
in  their  verdict, 

We  find  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan— GUILTY.  * 

Lord  Clonmel, — Do  the  counsel  for  the  defendant  desire  four  days 
time  to  move  in  arrest  of  judgment? 

Mr.  CuRRAN The  only  instructions  I  have  from  my  client  are  to 

disclaim  any  application  of  that  kind :  he  does  not  wish  to  take 
advantage  of  errors  in  the  I'ecord,  if  any  there  be,  but  is  now  ready 
to  attend  to  receive  what  sentence  the  court  may  be  pleased  to  pro- 
nounce. 

Lord  CiiONMEL. — (After  conferring  with  the  otlier  judges)  We  will 
not  pronounce  judgement  till  four  days. — Mr.  Sheriff  take  care  of 
your  prisoner. 

The  counsel  for  Mr.  Rowan  here  objected,  that  he  was  not  a 
prisoner — he  had  not  been  in  custody — he  had  not  given  bail  upon 
this  information — he  was  bound  in  no  recognizance — was  served  with 
no  process — he  had  appeared  to  the  information  by  attorney  ; — he 
pleaded  by  attorney — the  issue  was  tried  after  the  manner  of  a  civil 
action,  a  word  mei'ely  of  the  record  being  read,  and  the  defendant  was 
not  given  in  charge  to  the  jury  as  the  practice  is,  where  he  appears  in 
custody.  Mr.  Rowan  attended  the  trial,  it  is  true,  but  the  court  had 
no  judicial  cognizance  of  him  ;  the  information  could  have  been  tried 
in  his  absence — he  attended  as  a  common  auditor,  and  the  witness 
being  called  upon  to  point  him  out  at  the  desire  of  the  bench,  might  have 
been  a  satisfaction  to  them  to  see  that  the  witnesses  were  speaking  of 
the  same  person,  but  it  was  altogether  unprecedented  in  such  cases  as 
the  present.  Mr.  Rowan  was  ready  for  sentence — he  claims  no 
indulgence — does  not  insist  upon  the  ibur-day  rule ;  but  if  the  court, 
for  their  own  accommodation,  choose  to  defer  the  sentence  for  four 
days,  they  have  no  legal  authority  for  sending  Mr.  Rowan  to  prison, 
until  sentence  pronounced,  or  the  usual  and  accustomed  process  issued 
against  him. 

Lord  Clonmel. — If  the   Attorney- General  consents,  I  have   no 
objection. 

The  Attorney-General  had  left  court,  and  the  Solicitor  for  the 
Crown  remained  silent. 

Lord  Clonmel The  defendant  is  a  convict,  as  such  he  is  a  prisoner 

— the  law  must  have  its  course.     Adjourn  the  court. 

Accordingly  the  court  was  adjourned. 

Mr.  Rowan  was  conveyed  to  the  New  prison,  attended  by  both  the 
Sheriffs,  and  a  formidable  array  of  horse  and  foot  guards. 

*  When  this  verdict  was  first  brought  in,  there  was  a  loud  clap  of  approbation 
commenced  in  the  outer  hall,  it  is  presumed  from  a  misconception  that  the  jury 
had  acquitted  the  defendant ;  for  when  the  verdict  was  repeated,  and  the  word 
guilty,  sufficiently  stressed,  the  clap  was  changed  into  hootings,  and  hissings,  and 
groans,  that  lasted  with  very  little  remission,  during  the  remainder  of  the  sitting 
of  the  court. 


ARCHIBALiD  HAMILTON   ROWAN.  123 

Monday,  February  3,  1794. 

A  habeas  corpus,  grounded  on  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Matthew  Dow- 
ling,  Mr.  Rowan's  solicitor,  was  granted  to  bring  up  John  Coultry, 
confined  in  Newgate  for  debt,  to  swear  an  affidavit ;  Mr.  Rowan  was 
also  ordered  up  for  the  same  purpose ;  when  their  affidavits,  together 
with  those  of  William  Porter,  John  William  Atkinson,  and  Francis 
Clarke,  wei'e  sworn. 

Mr.  Recorder  moved  the  court  to  set  aside  the  verdict  obtained  on 
Wednesday  last  and  grant  a  new  trial  in  this  cause,  pursuant  to  a 
notice  served  on  Mr.  Attorney-General,  and  grounded  on  these 
affidavits,  the  contents  of  which  he  set  forth. 

Mr.  Attorney-General,  having  after  some  time  come  into  court, 
moved  the  court  to  appoint  a  day  to  have  Mr.  Rowan  brought  up  for 
judgment. 

Lord  Clonmel  appointed  to-morrow,  and  at  the  same  time  acquainted 
the  Attorney- General  with  the  Recorder's  motion,  and  the  nature  of 
the  affidavits. 

The  Attorney-General  then  desired  to  have  them  read  ;  which 
they  were  as  follows  : 

The  affidavit  of  Porter  stated  that  he  (Porter)  had  a  conversation 
with  George  Perrin,  one  of  the  jurors  in  the  case,  on  the  Wednesday 
previous  to  the  trial,  and  that  Perrin  said  that  the  country  would 
never  have  repose  until  Napper  Tandy  and  Hamilton  Rowan  were 
transported  or  hanged.  Atkinson  deposed  in  his  affidavit  to  several 
disparaging  remarks  made  by  George  Perrin  relating  to  the  tx-averser, 
and  that  he  (George  Perrin)  on  one  occasion,  previous  to  the  trial, 
had  said  that  Rowan  and  several  others  (of  the  Volunteers)  deserved 
and  ought  to  be  hanged.  The  affidavit  of  Coultry  charged  Lyster 
with  personating  his  brother  and  swearing  to  the  propeity  in  a  horse 
which  had  been  seized  for  debt,  and  which  Lyster  made  affidavit  was 
his,  he  swearing  that  he  was  George  William  Lyster,  who  in  fact 
was  one  of  his  brothei-s  ;  Clarke's  affidavit  stated  that  Lyster  havino- 
been  summoned  by  him  to  the  court  of  Conscience  had  sworn  falsely 
there,  that  he  did  not  know  and  had  never  seen  Clarke,  the  fact  being 
that  Lyster  had  been  during  six  years  in  the  habit  of  frequenting 
Clarke's  shop,  and  had  spoken  with  him  a  few  days  previous  to 
Lyster's  making  such  oath.  Mr.  Rowan  stated  in  his  affidavit  that 
several  persons  whom  he  had  not  known  before  the  trial  would  be 
matei'ial  witnesses  to  impeach  the  testimony  of  Lystex",  that  some 
membex'S  of  the  jury  had,  px-evious  to  the  tx-ial,  uttex-ed  speeches  dis- 
appx'oviixg  of  the  condixct  of  Mx-.  Rowaxx ;  axxd,  further,  that  he  had 
xxo  doubt,  fx'om  daily  eixquix'ies  made  and  then  being  made  ixxto  the 
life,  coxiduct,  and  cliaracter  of  Lystex-,  that  he  would  be  eixabled  to 
px'ove  him  to  be  a  nxaxx  who  ought  not  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath. 
After  Mr.  Rowaxi's  affidavit  had  been  x*ead,  he  was  advised  by  counsel 
to  xnake  axiother,  axid  was  pex'mitted  by  the  court.  This  fuxtlier 
affidavit  utterly  denied  the  fact  of  publicatioxi  sworn  to  by  Lyster 
and  Morton  ;  stated  that  Mx-.  Rowan  did  not  previously  know  the 
cix'cunxstances  detailed  ixx  the  affidavits  of  Clarke,  Portex-,  Coultxy, 
and  Atkinsoix,  that  Johxx  Giffiii'd  the  Shex-iff,  was  a  Government 
Journalist,  had  an  otlxce  in  Revenue,  was  prejudiced  against  Rowan, 
and  has  endeavoxxx-ed  to  empannel  jurox's  prejudiced  like  himself. 


124  TRIAL   OF 

After  it  was  read  the  court  asked  the  Attorney- General,  whether 
he  wished  for  time  to  have  these  affidavits  answered ;  to  wliich  he 
having  replied  in  the  negative,  the  court  ordered  Mr.  Rowan  to  be 
brought  up  on  the  following  day  ;  and  adjourned. 

Tuesday,  February  4,  1794. 

Mr.  Rkcorder  said  he  was  instructed  that  there  were  four  new 
affidavits,  sworn  to  the  same  purpose  as  those  read  yesterday,  to  prove 
that  others  of  the  jurors  had  used  expressions  of  enmity  against  Mr. 
Rowan  before  the  trial,  and  prayed  that  they  miglit  be  read. 

Mr.  Attorney-General  objected,  for  that  yesterday  was  the  last 
day,  in  which  any  affidavits  could  be  made,  and  now  it  was  attempted  to 
bring  others  without  any  notice ;  he  was  willing  that  this  case  should 
meet  the  fairest  and  *  fullest  investigation,  but  would  not  consent  that 
the  rules  of  court  should  be  departed  from  on  this,  more  than  on  any 
other  occasion. 

Mr.  Recorder. — I  am  very  sensible  that  in  ordinary  civil  cases, 
where  any  motion  is  made  to  set  aside  a  verdict,  the  party  must  apply 
within  four  days,  and  lay  a  sufficient  ground  for  the  motion  ;  but 
even  then  the  court  would  sometimes  indulge  the  party  with  another 
day,  to  lay  before  it  new  materials,  in  advancement  of  justice.*  The 
intention  of  the  traverser,  or  his  counsel,  was  not  to  do  anything  by 
surprise,  or  to  bring  these  affidavits  hastily  forward,  to  prevent  the 
crown  from  answering  them  ;  we  are  willing  to  give  any  reasonable 
time  for  that  purpose.  But  your  lordships  will  consider  the  circum- 
stances in  which  this  traverser  stands  ;  that  he  is  in  confinement  and 
not  at  liberty  to  search  for  evidence,  or  the  necessary  materials  for 
his  defence ;  not  standing  in  the  situation  of  a  defendant  in  any  civil 
action,  but  in  a  situation  which  the  law  regards  so  far,  as  never  to 
impute  laches  to  any  man  whilst  he  is  in  prison.  If  it  is  necessary, 
I  am  instructed  that  affidavits  can  be  made,  that  the  matters,  now 
brought  forward,  were  only  discovered  since  the  rising  of  the  court 
yesterday,  and  there  is  scarce  an  hour  that  further  evidence  does  not 
come  forward,  tending  to  show  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  present 
case.  The  information  now  offered  to  the  court  has  been  so  lately 
brought  to  light,  that  the  agent  has  not  had  time  to  brief  the  affidavits ; 
I  have  only  been  informed,  on  my  way  into  court,  of  the  purpose  for 
wliich  they  are  brought  forward,  and  am  still  ignorant  of  their  contents ; 
and  as  the  justice  of  the  case  maybe  advanced,  and  no  inconvenience 
can  result  from  it,  I  trust  your  lordships  will  allow  these  affidavits 
to  be  read,  and  the  motion  either  to  go  forward  now,  or  to  wait  till 
the  counsel  for  the  crown  shall  have  an  opportunity  of  answering 
them. 

Mr.  Attorney- General. — The  rank,  character,  or  situation  of  any 
man  standing  in  this  court  accused  of  a  crime,  I  conceive  to  be  a 
matter  of  perfect  insignificance,  when  put  in  compction  with  the 
settled  rules  of  distributive  justice.  There  are  a  certain  number  of 
days  given  to  move  in  arrest  of  judgment,   or  for  new  trial ;  within 

*  For  the  rule  in  ci-imirial  eases,  see  Rev?.'.  Holt, 5  T.  Rep.  436;  Rex  v.  Hether- 
ington,  5,  Jurist,  529 ;  R.  l\  Scully,  Al.  &  Nap.  262;  Rex  v.  Teal.  II,  East,  307- 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  125 

whicli  the  party  is  to  lay  before  the  court  the  ground  upon  which  he 
means  to  move  :  all  then  that  is  insisted  upon  is  that  this  defendant 
should  be  bound  by  the  same  rule  that  binds  every  man  in  the  like 
circumstances  :  for  if  a  party  should  be  at  liberty  from  day  to  day  to 
bring  forward  new  afhdavits,  there  never  would  be  an  end  of  any 
prosecution.*  Mr.  Recorder's  observation  shows  the  good  sense  of 
this  rule  ;  he  says  new  materials  are  pouring  in  every  hour — I  doubt 
it  not ;  and  that  new  atfidavits  may  come  in  to-night ;  and  the  same 
arguments  used  to-day  will  be  used  to-mon'ow. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — There  was  no  objection  made  yesterday  to  the 
reading  of  affidavits,  which  were  made  and  sworn  in  the  presence 
of  the  court.  Mr.  Attorney- General  has  himself  said  that  the 
defendant  was  at  liberty  yesterday  ;  if  so,  he  is  equally  within  the 
rule  to-day,  for  this  is  only  a  continuation  of  the  same  motion  : — this 
is  a  question  put,  as  it  were,  to  the  conscience  of  the  court,  viz.  do  your 
lordships  think  that  justice  has  been  so  done,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  sent 
to  a  new  enquiry  ;  and  shall  any  rule  of  practice  be  suffered  to  preclude 
the  light  which  should  inform  that  conscience  ? — It  would  be  absurd 
that  no  distinction  should  be  made  between  ordinary  and  extraordinary 
cases  ;  in  small  matters  summary  justice  is  enforced  ;  but  in  such  a  case 
as  this  is  (he  would  speak  as  guardedly  as  possible)  the  court  will  con- 
sider that  punishment  is  not  inflicted  vindictively,  but  for  example  and 
prevention  ;  and  that  nothing  gives  so  much  force  to  the  preventive  effect 
of  sentences  of  courts  of  justice,  as  all  the  world  being  able  to  say,  every 
fair  enquiry  has  been  made,  and  the  sentence  has  passed  in  consequence 
of  an  impartial  verdict.  There  is  a  way  known  to  our  law  to  set 
verdicts  aside,  where  there  has  been  any  abuse  of  justice ;  any  fault 
in  the  returning  officer,  the  jury,  or  the  witnesses ;  or  any  mistake  in 
the  court :  all  applications  and  infonnation  for  this  purpose  have 
been  received  with  indulgence ;  and  upon  the  most  cool  enquiry  it 
has  been  found  that  the  verdict,  upon  which  the  sentence  was  had, 
must  have  satisfied  the  reasonable,  fair,  conscientious  mind  of  any 
man ;  this  it  is  which  gives  to  the  sentence  of  the  law  that  good  and 
tranquillising  effect,  for  which  alone  it  is  intended. 

We  ai-e  now  prepared  to  shew  that  more  of  these  jurors  have  made 
express  declarations  of  malice,  and  shall  it  lie  in  the  mouth  of  the 
prosecutor  to  say,  there  is  a  rule  which  operates  like  a  trap  upon  the 
conscience  of  the  court  of  King's  Bench ;  that  after  a  certain  moment 
it  becomes  so  helpless,  that  let  what  will  arise  it  can  do  justice  no 
longer  ? 

I  say  the  rules  are  the  instruments,  not  the  tyrants  of  the  court ; 
as  to  the  point  of  practice  it  is  conceived  that  trials  at  bar  are  not 
within  the  four-day  rule ;  but  I  go  upon  a  moi'e  solid  ground,  and 
appeal  to  this,  that  the  court  has  a  right  to  receive  information,  at  any 
time,  in  furtherance  of  justice ;  if  it  were  necessaiy  to  cite  cases, 
thex'e  has  been  a  very  late  one  in  this  court,  where  it  has  exercised 
the  very  same  discretion. 

After  the  verdict  was  brought  in,  not  having  the  least  idea  that 
there  was  any  fact  existing,  which  could  impeach  the  verdict,  the  tra- 
verser's counsel  stated,  that  if  it  was  the  pleasure  of  the  court,  he 

•  R.  V.  Bnwditch,  2  Chittv's  R.  278. 


126 


TRIAL  OF 


should  appear  to  receive  sentence ;  and  let  me  observe  that  he  did  not 
at  that  time  conceive  that  he  was  in  custody ;  he  was  not  called  on  to 
appear;  there  was  no  order,  and  the  only  judicial  knowledge  the  court 
had  of  his  being  present,  was  that  a  witness  turned  to  him  to  identify 
him ;  if  then,  instead  of  being  at  large,  as  he  ought  to  have  been,  he 
was  put  into  prison,  where  he  had  not  the  same  opportunity  of  procur- 
ing evidence,  however  universally  it  might  exist,  can  there  be  a 
stronger  circumstance  to  shew  that  he  is  peculiarly  entitled  to  the 
indulgence  he  seeks. 

Mr,  Fletcher,  on  the  same  side — When  I  see  the  temper  of  the 
audience  which  surrounds  me,  I  shall  avoid  touching  upon  public 
topics  with  the  same  delicacy,  which  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me 
has  done.  If  justice  is  the  object  of  this  prosecution,  why  stand  upon 
such  punctilious  points  of  practice,  and  inter  apices  juris  :  in  the  case 
alluded  to,  it  was  insisted  that  the  four-day  rule  did  apply  to  trials  at 
bar,  but  the  court  decided  otherwise,  and  there  is  good  reason  for  the 
distinction ;  in  cases  coming  from  the  country  this  rule  is  necessary, 
to  prevent  the  one  party  from  keeping  the  postea  in  his  pocket,  until 
he  could  surprise  the  other  at  a  time  when  he  was  not,  perhaps,  so 
well  prepared  to  impeach  the  verdict ;  it  is  necessary,  then,  that  there 
should  be  a  fixed  time,  that  no  advantage  may  be  snatched ;  but  there 
is  no  analogy  to  a  case  of  this  kind,  which  is  entirely  in  the  breast  of 
the  court. 

In  the  Dean  of  St,  Asaph's  case,  a  great  prosecution  instituted,  like 
this,  to  answer  the  ends  of  public  peace,  and  public  policy,  the  court 
did  exercise  its  wisdom  upon  the  merits  of  the  business  before  it ;  the 
rule  was  not  adhered  to,  but  the  parties  were  let  in  after  the  four  days 
had  expired.  As  to  the  objection  which  has  been  thrown  out,  that 
if  this  matter  is  postponed  we  may  come  in  to-morrow,  and  the  next 
day,  and  so  on  ;  it  is  answered,  that  we  will  undertake,  if  it  should 
lie  over  till  to-morrow,  to  rest  satisfied,  and  seek  for  no  more 
materials. 

This  is  merely  a  point  of  practice,  and  it  strikes  my  mind  as  folly 
to  say,  that  so  high  a  court  as  this  has  not  its  practice  within  its  own 
power. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice — On  the  day  that  Mr,  Rowan  was 
convicted,  we  were  called  upon  for  judgment;  but  we  conceived,  that 
even  if  it  was  not  a  matter  of  right  upon  adjudged  cases,  it  was  still 
proper,  that  the  defendant  should  have  four  days  to  question  the  ver- 
dict, or  move  in  arrest  of  judgment:  Suppose,  instead  of  that,  we  had 
then  pronounced  judgment,  all  argument  would  have  been  concluded, 
for  it  would  have  been  absurd  to  say,  that  he  should  have  been  suffered, 
after  that,  to  unravel  the  proceedings  ;  then  what  has  passed  since  ? 
A  motion  has  been  made  and  entertained  upon  affidavits,  stating  facts, 
of  which  the  party  has  had  information  since  that  day ;  I  mention 
this  to  shew  that  there  has  been  no  precipitancy  in  the  court,  nor 
possible  hardship  in  what  it  has  done.  Yesterday  Mr.  Rowan  made 
an  affidavit,  some  others  were  also  made ;  Mr,  Rowan  desired  to  make 
a  further  one,  and  the  court  waited  till  a  late  liour,  till  it  was  com- 
posed and  sworn  ;  tlie  Attorney- General  was  then  called  upon,  who 
declined  to  answer  these  affidavits;  the  court  then  certainly  concluded 
it  was  to  hear   no  more  of  tli(^  collecting  of  materials  for  this  motion, 


ARCHISALD  HAMILTON    ROWAN.  127 

but  that  it  should  go  on  and  be  argued  like  every  other  of  the  same 
kind. 

It  is  said  the  rule  of  court,  with  respect  to  moving  for  new  trials, 
does  not  extend  to  cases  tried  at  bar,  in  the  city  of  Dublin  ;  that 
does  not  apply  to  this  case,  for  the  reason  before  mentioned,  that 
within  four  days  judgment  would  be  pronounced  ;  so  that  from  the 
nature  of  the  thing,  this  motion  must  be  made  within  four  days. 

See  what  consequences  would  follow,  from  the  letting  in  affidavits 
pending  a  motion  of  this  kind  ;  there  is  not  an  argument  to  be  used 
by  the  counsel  on  either  side,  that  would  not  lay  the  foundation  for  a 
new  affidavit,  so  that  a  motion  would  never  have  an  end. 

We  are  all  of  opinion,  that  it  would  introduce  confusion  into  the 
practice  of  the  court  and  be  a  pernicious  precedent,  and  that  the 
affidavits  cannot  be  read. 

[Here  there  took  place  some  altercation  upon  the  question  of 
practice,  who  should  first  go  on  ;  the  traverser's  counsel  insisting,  that 
the  affidavits  prima  facie  entitled  them  to  their  motion,  and  that  the 
usual  practice  of  giving  the  last  word  to  the  crown  did  not  extend  to 
a  motion  of  this  kind  ;  but  the  court,  upon  the  authority  of  the  King 
against  Home,  desired  the  defendant's  counsel  to  proceed  in  support 
of  the  motion.] 

Mr.  Fletcher. — This  is  a  prosecution  highly  interesting,  not  only  to 
that  most  respectable  individual  (for  so  I  shall  continue  to  call  him, 
notwithstanding  the  verdict),  but  who  is  the  immediate  object  of  it, 
also  to  the  community  at  large  ;  it  is  a  great  prosecution  directed  upon 
solemn  and  deliberate  grounds,  to  attain  the  ends  of  public  peace  and 
public  justice ;  the  court  will  scrutinise  into  a  verdict  that  affixes  the 
guilt  of  a  high  misdemeanor  on  a  character  so  respectable  ;  the  only 
end  of  such  prosecutions  must  be  to  deter  others  from  the  commission 
of  similar  crimes,  and  to  satisfy  the  public  mind,  and  to  convince  the 
world  that  guilty  practices  do  not  go  unpunished  ;  it  therefore  becomes 
necessary,  that  such  a  verdict  should  be  free  from  the  shadow  of 
objection,  otherwise  so  far  from  having  the  salutary  effect  proposed, 
it  might  have  a  very  different  one ;  men  will  scan  the  gi'ound  upon 
which  such  verdicts  have  been  had  ;  points  of  practice,  and  objections 
i7iter  apices  juris — amongst  the  quii'ks  and  pranks  of  the  law — will  then 
vanish,  and  the  public  will  stamp  reprobation  on  a  vei'dict  obtained 
under  circumstances  of  suspicion  and  unfairness. 

The  affidavits,  on  which  we  ground  our  motion,  are  now  to  be  taken 
as  true  as  the  gospel,  the  verity  of  them  cannot  be  shaken  ;  the 
gentlemen  concerned  with  the  prosecution  have  been  called  on  to 
answer  them,  and  have  not  done  it ;  these  affidavits  then  furnish  three 
objections  to  the  verdict. 

1st.  As  to  the  person  upon  whose  evidence  alone  (upon  the  face  of 
your  loi'dships'  notes)  the  verdict  could  be  sustained,  two  or  three 
affidavits  go  pointedly  to  show  that  he  is  utterly  destitute  of  credit. 

2d.  There  is  another  class  of  affidavits  impeaching  one  of  the  jurors 
for  deep  malignity  conceived  against  my  client. 

3d.  There  is  that  of  the  traverser  himself,  who  swears  that  the 
testimony  of  the  witnesses  was  false,  and  further  that  he  has  reason 
to  believe  that  the  person,  who  arrayed  the  pannel,  did  it  through 
favour,  and  purposely  chose  men  liostile  to  him  and  to  his  principles. 


128  TRIAL   OF 

Now  even  if  any  one  of  these  grounds  taken  separately,  were  not 
sufficient  to  shake  the  verdict,  it  becomes  a  matter  of  high  concern 
to  see  whether  the  result  of  the  whole  does  not,  at  the  least,  furnish 
a  doubt  that  justice  has  not  been  done  ;  if  so,  it  brings  it  within  the 
great  principle  upon  which  alone  new  trials  should  be  granted.  It 
cannot  be  expected  that  a  case  should  be  found,  apposite  in  every 
minute  particular  ;  the  present  case  has  a  good  deal  of  novelty,  and 
I  cannot  find  any  accurately  agreeing  with  it ;  but  you  have  the  high 
authority  of  that  luminary  of  the  law,  Lord  Mansfield,  thus  declaring 
himself  in  the  case  of  Bright  and  Enyon,  1  Bur.  "  If  we  have 
reason  to  think  that  justice  has  not  been  done,  we  will  send  it  to 
another  examination."  It  is  upon  such  broad  pinnciples  that  I  go, 
and  if  that  was  the  opinion  of  his  lordship,  in  a  civil  action,  between 
man  and  man,  with  how  mvich  greater  reason  should  it  be  so  in  a 
trial  between  the  sovereign  of  the  land  and  so  respectable  a  citizen, 
who  is  accused  of  violating  the  laws  of  that  land,  to  which  it  was  his 
duty  to  be  amenable.  Will  any  man  in  his  right  reason  say,  that  the 
great  broad  liberal  principle  should  not  be  applied  a  fortiori  to  a  case 
of  this  kind,  where  the  liberty  of  the  subject  is  at  stake,  with  all  that 
he  holds  dear — where  the  public  peace,  and  the  opinion  the  world 
may  entertain  of  public  justice,  are  involved. 

Taking  it  then  for  granted,  that  this  principle  applies  at  least  as 
strongly  to  criminal  cases,  as  to  civil,  there  are  abundance  of  autho- 
rities in  the  books — [Here  he  apologised  for  not  being  better  prepared, 
having  only  got  his  brief  on  his  way  to  court.] — In  Bac.  tit.  New 
Ti'ials,  there  is  a  case  where  new  evidence  was  let  in,  and  it  is  true, 
there  are  in  the  same  page,  cases  where  it  was  refused ;  what  con- 
clusion is  to  be  drawn  from  this,  but  that  every  case  of  this  nature 
stands  upon  its  own  peculiar  foundation,  and  is  not  to  be  strictly 
governed  by  any  decided  case,  because  when  it  is  not  a  question  of 
abstract  law,  but  a  consideration  emanating:  and  flowinir  from  a 
combination  of  circumstances,  never  the  same  in  any  two  cases,  it  is 
of  all  questions  that  can  come  before  a  court  of  common  law,  that 
most  peculiarly  within  its  own  sound  judicial  discretion.  That  can  be 
gathered  from  reporters,  differing  in  attention  and  ability,  and  in  some 
broad  principles  of  general  smalogy.  Wherever  there  is  any  strong 
leading  feature  in  the  case,  it  must  be  judged  of  according  to  its  own 
tendency  and  effect ;  it  is  apparently  from  the  oscitancy  of  the 
reporters,  from  their  being  unacquainted  with  the  facts,  and  for  want 
of  more  correct  and  particular  notes,  that  we  find  so  much  seeming 
contradiction,  otherwise  we  should  find  the  opinions  of  the  judges 
nearly  the  same  in  all  similar  cases,  but  varying  with  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  each  particular  case  ;  as  in  the  present,  the  verdict 
certainly  would  not  be  set  aside,  unless  it  appeared  that  the  new 
evidence  came  to  the  parties'  knowledge  since  the  trial. 

But  there  is  a  circumstance  which,  in  my  opinion,  pointedly  dis- 
tinguishes this  from  all  other  cases,  viz.,  that  the  new  evidence  is 
applicable  to  the  credit  of  the  principal  witness,  upon  whose  testimony 
the  verdict  must  have  been  found,  and  not  to  any  substantive  matter, 
making  a  particular  ingredient  in  the  case.  Nor  is  it  a  new  substan- 
tive defence.  P^or  the  court  has  wisely  said,  we  will  not  set  aside 
verdicts  on  account  of  evidence,  which  might  rc^asonably  have  come 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON   ROWAN.  129 

to  the  knowledge  of  the  party  before ;  for  then,  whenever  tlie  point 
upon  which  he  rested  proved  insufficient,  he  Avould  next  shift  his 
ground,  and  try  some  new  sort  of  defence. 

Having  often  searched  for  cases  of  this  kind,  I  can  say,  upon  my 
recollection,  that  there  is  none  like  the  present  to  be  found.  Your 
lordships  then  have  no  guide  but  your  own  discretion,  and  your  own 
notes  to  recur  to,  where  you  will  see  in  what  point  of  view  this 
gentleman's  evidence  appeared. 

At  the  trial,  he  admitted  that  two  bonds  had  been  set  up  by  his 
younger  brother  against  his  elder,  Which  he  was  called  to  prove,  as  a 
subscribing  witness.  He  admitted  that  the  genuineness  of  these  bonds 
had  been  the  subject-matter  of  suits  in  courts  of  justice;  that  both  his 
father,  in  his  Itfe-time,  and  since  his  death  his  eldest  brother,  had 
impeached  the  authenticity  of  these  bonds,  to  which  he  had  signed  his 
name  as  a  witness.  He  admits  an  issue  out  of  Chancery  to  try  their 
authenticity :  but  they  went  down,  and  were  the  subject-matter  of  a 
trial;  but  that  some  compromise  being  mentioned,  a  juror  was  with- 
drawn, and  the  matter  submitted  to  referees,  who  gave  only  £200 
instead  of  £800,  which  was  the  value  of  the  bonds.  He  was  asked 
whether  he  was  examined  at  the  trial,  to  prove  the  validity  of  these 
bonds.  His  answer  was,  I  cannot  charge  my  memory  with  these  facts  ; 
a  pretty  extraordinary  answer  from  one  who,  in  other  respects,  has 
been  so  accurate.  Since  the  commencement  of  this  business,  he  has 
got  a  commission  by  the  good  offices  of  a  lady,  who  was  his  relation, 
and  before  that,  he  had  no  business  nor  profession. 

Thus  did  the  testimony  of  this  witness,  who  alone  attempted  to 
bring  the  publication  home  to  the  traverser,  appear  extremely  suspi- 
cious, even  upon  his  own  examination.     It  will  appear  upon  your 
Lordship's  notes,  that  a  gentleman  from  the  same  neighbourhood,  was 
afterwards  asked  :   Is  such  a  person  to  be  credited  upon  his  oath  ?    He 
answered,  it  was  a  very  hard  matter  to  say ;  but  made  use  of  the 
words,   "  I  might  hesitate."     Another  was  examined.     What  did  he 
say  ?     "  It  is  a  very  hard  question — I  know  but  little  more  than  what 
happened  on  the  trial,  where  he  was  examined.     I  would,  for  my  own 
part,  give  him  very  little  credit."     But  being  pressed  again,  he  said 
he  did  not  think  himself  warranted  to  say,  he  was  not  to 'be  ci*edited, 
from   any    particular  knowledge  of  his  OAvn.      A    very   respectable 
witness,  of  the  other  sex,  was  then    called,  who  said  she  would  not 
credit  him  upon   his  oath.     She  was  cross-examined  in  a  manner 
which  plainly  showed  that  the  conductors  of  the  prosecution  were 
1    aware  that  the  character  and  credit  of  the  witness  was  to  be  impeached, 
I    and  by  whom  it  was  to  be  impeached,  and  yet  have  been  able  to  bring 
forward  nothing  to  support  it.     This  lady  was  asked,  if  there  was  any 
1    particular  infidelity  which  she  had  to  complain  of  in  the  witness  ?    She 
answered,  that  he  had  a  brother  who  was  married  to  her  daughter, 
whom  he  had  endeavoured  to  seduce  from  his  wife.     This,  however, 
not  proving  sufficient  at  the  trial  to  discredit  the  witness,  I  trust  we 
shall  now  be  allowed  to  bring  forward  the   new   matter,  which  has 
since  come  to  our  knowledge,  in  corroboration,  explanation,  and  illus- 
tration of  what  passed  there. 

The  hair-dresser  charges  the  witness  with  direct  perjury.    He  states 
that  he  knew  him,  and  dressed  his  hair  for  a  length  of  time,  and  sued 

K 


ll 


130  TRIAL   OF 

him  for  the  debt  thereby  incurred,  in  the  Court  of  Conscience,  where 
the  other,  on  his  oath,  denied  that  he  had  ever  seen  him,  or  that  he 
ever  knew  his  name,  although  the  hair-dresser  swears  to  a  conversation 
that  passed  between  them  that  day  on  Essex-bridge ;  there  has  been  time 
to  answer  that  affidavit,  it  remains,  however,  uncontradicted ;  therefore 
I  am  entitled  to  take  it  as  true,  and  it  ought  to  have  as  much  weight 
as  that  of  the  most  dignified  person  in  the  state.  It  is  the  same  thing 
as  if  this  witness  had  been  called  upon  the  table,  and  gone  down 
without  cross-examination,  and  then  where  would  have  been  the 
evidence  to  support  the  publication  ? 

There  is  also  another  witness  who  tells  a  story  about  a  horse  cause, 
when  Lyster  made  an  affidavit,  and  therein  perjured  himself,  by  per- 
sonating and  swearing  in  the  name  of  his  brother. 

It  is  true,  at  the  trial,  the  jury  would  have  been  judges  of  the  credit 
of  the  witnesses,  but  your  lordships  would  not  have  passed  over  the 
testimony  of  these  two  men,  and  if  you  had  then  stated,  that  there  was 
not  a  single  witness  but  himself,  to  give  any  legal  proof  of  publication, 
it  is  for  your  lordships  to  judge,  whether  the  jury  would  have  found 
the  verdict  they  did  ;  and  it  is  enough  for  me,  if  I  can  even  raise  a 
doubt,  to  use  Lord  Mansfield's  words,  in  Bright  v.  Enyon,  whether 
justice  has  been  done. 

But  it  does  not  stand  upon  the  ground  alone  of  the  impeachment 
of  the  witness  ;  there  are  two  other  affidavits  impeaching  the  conduct 
of  one  of  the  j  urors.  Perhaps  it  may  be  argued  from  public  con- 
venience, that  when  the  party  has  not  been  fortunate  enough  to  find 
evidence  of  this  kind  before  the  trial,  upon  which  to  challenge  the 
array  or  the  particular  j  urors,  it  is  better  that  the  individual  should 
abide  his  misfortune,  than  tliat  confusion  and  irregularity  should  be 
introduced  into  the  jurisprudence  of  the  country  ;  but  I  trust  your 
lordships  will  make  that  consideration  bend  to  the  greater  question — 
has  justice  been  done? 

What  is  judicial  discretion?*  It  is  the  sovmd  application  of 
judicial  knowledge  and  good  judgment  to  the  peculiar  circumstances 
of  each  individual  case ;  it  is  the  investigation  of  every  minute 
circumstance  in  a  proceeding,  to  which  sound  sense  and  liberal 
understanding  can  be  applied. 

But  you  have  also  the  affidavits  of  that  respectable  man,  of  whom 
the  voice  of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland  will  say,  that  he  would  not  sully 
his  unspotted  honor  by  using  any  unworthy  artifice  for  the  purpose  of 
evading  any  punishment  however  great. 

This  alone  ought  not  to  shake  the  verdict ;  but  will  any  man  attempt 
to  say,  that  an  affidavit  of  that  kind,  which  has  been  admitted,  and 
has  been  read,  and  must  obtain  the  belief  of  every  man  in  and  out  of 
court,  will  not  have  some  weight  to  induce  your  lordships  to  suspect 
that  justice  has  not  been  done. 

Mr.  Fletcher  then  recapitulated  the  four  grounds  of  the  motion. 

1st.  New  evidence  not  discovered  till  after  the  trial. 

2d.  New  evidence  to  impeach  that  witness  without  whom  (had  he 
been  out  of  the  way)  there  could  have  been  no  verdict  of  conviction. 

3d.  Evidence  to  impeach  the  jury. 

•  See  Thompson's  Case  as  to  "Judicial  Discretion;"  8  Howell's,  St.,  Tr.,  p.  56. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  131 

4th.  The  evidence  of  the  traverser  as  well  to  the  witnesses  as  the 
sheriif. 

And  concluded,  that  it  would  be  more  becoming  the  officers  of  the 
crown  to  say — we  will  not  have  such  a  verdict  as  this  to  go  abroad 
and  be  scrutinised  in  every  country,  where  the  English  language 
is  read.  If  we  cannot  have  a  conviction  consistent  with  justice  and 
with  decency,  we  will  have  none. 

Mr.  Recorder,  on  the  same  side,  followed  Mr.  Fletcher,  putting  the 
same  arguments  in  a  striking  and  vai'ied  point  of  view ;  he  observed, 
that  by  setting  aside  this  verdict  and  sending  the  cause  back  again  to 
receive  a  solemn,  serious,  and  deliberate  investigation,  from  a  fair  jury 
of  the  country,  returned  by  a  returning  officer  whom  the  traverser 
has  no  reason  to  distrust,  there  could  not  follow  the  smallest  mischief, 
and  then,  if  upon  fair  evidence  laid  before  the  court  on  one  side  and 
the  other,  he  should  happen  to  be  convicted,  that  conviction  would 
have  the  effect  which  was  intended ;  but  if  this  verdict  was  to  stand 
after  the  evidence  which  had  appeared  upon  the  trial,  and  after 
the  lights  which  had  been  thrown  upon  it  since,  there  is  not  a  person 
present  in  the  court,  and  believing  that  testimony  false,  that  would 
not  feel  sorrow,  to  see  the  judgment  of  a  couii;  of  justice  so  founded. 

If  this  gentleman  had  been  indicted  in  the  ordinary  way,  for  a 
misdemeanor,  he  would  have  had  an  opportunity  of  knowing  the  party 
prosecuting,  and  the  specific  charge  made  against  him.  But  when  an 
information  is  filed  ex  officio,  it  is  the  practice  of  the  officers  of  the 
crown  to  keep  the  information  they  receive  in  their  pocket  for  their 
own  justification,  and  the  defendant  is  not  authorised  to  call  upon  the 
crown  for  a  copy  of  the  examinations  sworn. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice. — When  this  was  mentioned  before, 
it  occurred  to  me  that  there  had  been  an  examination  sworn  before  a 
magistrate,  and  he  was  not  prevented  from  applying  for  it. 

Here  Mr.  Rowan  appealed  to  Mr.  Justice  Downes,  whether  he  had 
not,  when  before  him,  requested  to  know  who  the  perjured  villain 
was  that  could  have  sworn  against  him,  and  whether,  for  that  purpose, 
he  had  not  been  inclined  to  refuse  the  offer  of  bail,  choosing  rather  to 
go  to  prison,  that  he  might  know  his  accuser  and  prosecute  him,  (for 
he  had  been  refused  a  copy  of  the  examinations)  and  said,  that  had  he 
gone  to  gaol  then,  as  he  was  inclined,  he  would  have  been,  without 
doubt,  acquitted,  when  the  former  sheriffs  were  in  office,  and  when 
there  was  not  the  same  selection  of  jurors. 

Downes,  Justice — Admitted  that  the  defendant  had  stated  nothing 
but  what  passed,  and  that  he  had  got  no  information  from  him  respect- 
ing the  prosecutor. 

Mr.  Recorder. — The  person  prosecuted,  ex  officio,  knows  nothing 
more  than  what  appears  upon  the  infoi'mation  filed,  which  gives  him 
not  the  smallest  intimation  of  the  witness  who  is  to  prosecute  liim. 

He  then  made  some  pointed  observations  upon  the  testimony 
of  Lyster,  who  swore  that  there  were  one  or  two  hundred  people 
walking  up  and  down,  having  no  seats  ;  and  yet  in  the  midst  of 
so  much  confusion,  he  was  able,  from  a  distant  gallery,  to  distinguish 
that  gentleman's  voice,  which  did  not  appear  very  loud,  nor  very 
shrill,  nor  very  remarkably  articulate,  in  reading  a  paper  which 
he  presumes  to  swear  was  the  very  paper  which  is  the  subject  of  tliis 


132  TRIAL   OF 

prosecution ;  nor  could  he  remember  whether  he  had  been  examined 
some  time  within  three  years,  upon  so  important  a  question  as  a 
forgery  imputed  by  one  of  his  brothers  to  another,  and  in  which 
he  was  himself  involved. 

But  even  if  he  could  be  supposed  an  honest  man,  his  testimony  was 
bad,  as,  to  say  the  best,  his  memory  and  apprehensions  must  have 
been  very  defective. 

If  those  circumstances  of  discredit  had  not  appeared  upon  the  trial 
it  might  have  been  improper  to  admit  them  now ;  but  in  the 
present  situation  of  things,  it  would  be  a  favour  to  the  witness,  if 
he  thinks  he  has  been  slandered,  to  give  him  an  opportunity  of 
shewing,  upon  a  new  trial,  that  he  is  not  perjured  ;  and  as  it  was 
said  to  be  an  easy  matter  for  the  defendant  to  bring  a  third  person 
out  of  this  crowded  and  promiscuous  assembly  to  contradict  him,  so 
it  cannot  be  difficult  for  him  to  bring  some  individual  out  of  a  private 
gallery  to  support  him. 

The  evidence  of  Morton  was  most  palpably  false,  for  he  swore  that 
his  uncle  Giffiird,  to  his  belief,  had  not  any  thing  to  say  to  the  conduct 
of  the  Dublin  Journal,  nor  could  he  say  anything  of  the  relationship 
that  subsisted  between  his  cousin  Ryan  and  the  sheriff,  who  was  their 
common  uncle. 

And  he  concluded  by  observing,  respecting  the  traverser,  that  at 
all  events  it  would  not  convict  him  in  the  opinion  of  unprejudiced 
and  moderate  men,  to  have  gone  further  in  such  circumstances  than 
moderate  man  would  go  ;  that  the  traverser,  whose  affidavit  scarcely 
any  man  in  the  community  would  doubt,  had  sworn  that  the  evidence 
of  Lyster  was  false,  and  that  the  jury  were  prejudiced,  and  returned 
by  a  person  adverse  and  hostile  to  him  ;  and  that  the  public  could 
not  but  feel  horror  at  a  sentence  pronounced  upon  such  a  foundation. 

He  protested  solemnly,  that  feeling  for  the  dignity  and  character 
of  the  administration  of  justice  in  this  country,  he  was  more  inte- 
rested in  the  event  of  the  present  motion,  than  in  that  of  any  other 
in  which  he  was  ever  concerned.  The  King  had  not  in  his  dominions 
a  subject  more  warmly  attached  to  the  constitution  in  church  and 
state  than  he ;  but  he  was,  at  the  same  time,  a  friend  to  the  civil 
and  religious  liberties  of  the  people.  The  man  who  goes  too  far  in 
doing  what  he  thinks  may  tend  to  secure  these,  may  be  censured  by 
moderate  men,  but  he  will  not,  therefore,  cease  to  be  esteemed  by 
moderate  men.  Mr.  Rowan  may,  perhaps,  in  some  instances,  have 
gone  too  far  on  this  subject ;  but  his  conduct  has  always  been  known 
to  originate  in  the  best  and  purest  motives,  and  there  was  not  in 
society  a  man  more  respected,  nay,  admired,  than  he.  It  was,  there- 
fore, essential  in  the  highest  degree,  that  a  verdict,  by  which  such  a 
man  was  subjected  to  public  and  exemplary  punishment,  should  be 
above  all  exception. 

Mr.  CuRRAN,  on  the  same  side. — It  was  an  early  idea,  that  a  verdict 
in  a  criminal  case  could  not  be  set  aside,  inconsulto  rege,  but  the  law 
had  stood  otherwise  without  a  doubt,  to  impeach  its  principle  for  the 
last  two  reigns. 

Common  sense  would  say,  that  the  discretion  of  the  court  shoidd  go 
at  least  as  far  in  criminal  as  in  civil  cases,  and  very  often  to  go  no 
further  would  be  to  stop  far  short  of  what  was  right,  as  in  those  great 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  133 

questions  where  the  prosecution  may  be  considered  either  as  an 
attempt  to  extinguish  liberty,  or  as  a  necessary  measure  for  the  pur- 
pose of  repressing  the  virulence  of  public  licentiousness  and  dangerous 
faction  ;  where  there  can  be  no  altei-native  between  guilt  or  martyr- 
dom, where  the  party  prosecuted  must  either  be  considered  as  a 
culprit  sinking  beneath  the  punishment  of  his  own  crimes,  or  a 
victim  sacrificed  to  the  vices  of  others.  But  when  it  clearly  appears 
that  the  party  has  fallen  a  prey  to  a  persecuting  combination,  there 
remains  but  one  melancholy  question,  how  far  did  that  combination 
reach  ? 

There  have  been  two  cases  lately  decided  in  this  very  court,  the 
King  V.  Pentland,  where  the  motion  was  made  and  refused,  and 
the  King  v.  Bowen,  where  it  was  granted  ;  both  of  which  shew, 
that  captious  sophistry,  and  technical  pedantry,  had  here,  as  well  as 
in  England,  given  way  to  liberal  and  rational  inquiry  ;  and  that  the 
court  would  not  now,  in  their  discretion,  refuse  a  motion  of  this  kind, 
unless  they  could,  at  the  same  time,  lay  their  hands  upon  their  hearts, 
and  say,  they  believed  in  their  consciences  that  justice  had  been  done  \ 
such  was  the  manly  language  of  one  of  their  lordships  (Mr.  Justice 
Downes)  ;  and  such  the  opinion  of  the  court  on  a  former  occasion. 

He  then  cited  7  Modern  57.  as  referred  to  in  Bacon  tit.  Trial,  to 
shew  that  where  there  was  good  ground  of  challenge  to  a  jiu'or,  not 
known  at  the  trial,  it  was  sufficient  cause  for  setting  aside  the  verdict. 

In  England  they  have  a  particular  act  of  pai'liameut,  entitling  the 
party  to  strike  a  special  jury  to  try  the  fact,  and  then  he  has  time 
between  the  striking  and  the  trial,  to  question  the  propriety  of  that 
jury  ;  here  my  client  had  no  previous  information  till  the  instant  of 
trial,  who  his  jurors  are  to  be. 

There  are  certain  indulgences  granted  at  times,  perhaps  by  the 
connivance  of  humanity,  which  men,  who  are  not  entitled  to  demand 
them  in  an  open  court,  obtain  nevertheless  by  sidelong  means,  and 
perhaps  the  little  breach  which  aifords  that  light  to  the  mind  of  the 
man  accused,  is  a  circumstance  which  the  court  would  feel  pain,  even 
if  called  upon,  to  say,  should  in  all  cases  be  prevented  ;  but  to  over- 
turn principles  and  authorities,  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  the 
subject,  is  what  this  court  will  never  do. 

The  first  of  the  affidavits  I  shall  consider,  is  that  of  the  traverser. 
I  do  not  recollect  whether  it  states  the  sheriff,  in  avowed  terms,  to  be 
an  emissary  or  a  hireling  agent  of  the  Castle,  therefore  do  not  state 
it  from  the  affidavit ;  but  he  swears,  that  he  does  believe  that  he  did 
labour  to  bring  into  the  box  a  jury  full  of  prejudices,  and  of  the 
blackest  impressions ;  instead  of  having,  as  they  ought,  fair  and 
impartial  minds,  and  souls  like  white  paper. 

This  sheriff  now  stands  in  com-t,  he  might  have  denied  it  if  he  would ; 
he  had  an  opportunity  of  answering  it ;  but  he  has  left  it  an  undenied 
assertion — he  was  not  certainly  obliged  to  answer  it,  for  no  man 
is  bound  to  convict  himself.  But  there  is  a  part  of  that  charge  which 
amounts,  at  least,  to  this,  "  Your  heart  was  poisoned  against  me,  and 
you  collected  those  to  be  my  judges,  who,  if  they  could  not  be  under 
the  dominion  of  bad  dispositions,  might  be  at  least  the  dupes  of  good." 
The  most  favourable  thing  that  can  be  said  is  this,  "you  sought 
to  bring  against  me  honest  prejudices,  but  you  brought  against  me 


134  TRIAL   OF 

wicked  ones."  The  very  general  charge,  that  he  sought  for  persons, 
who  he  knew  were  most  likely  to  bring  prejudices  with  them  into  the 
juiy  box,  is  a  part  of  the  affidavit,  that  it  was  incumbent  on  him 
to  answer  if  he  could. 

I  do  not  contend,  that  what  is  charged  in  the  affidavit,  would  have 
been  a  ground  of  principal  challenge  to  the  ai'ray  ;  but  hold  it  to  be 
the  better  opinion,  that  a  challenge  to  the  array  for  favour,  does  well 
lie  in  the  mouth  of  the  defendant. 

The  ancient  notion  was,  you  shall  not  challenge  the  array  for 
favour  where  the  king  is  a  party ;  the  king  only  can  challenge 
for  favour,  for  the  principle  was,  that  every  man  ought  to  be  favour- 
able to  the  crown,  but  thank  God,  the  advancement  of  legal  knowledge 
and  the  growing  understanding  of  the  age,  has  dissipated  such 
illiberal  and  mischievous  conceptions. 

But  I  am  putting  too  much  stress  upon  such  technical,  discarded, 
and  antiquated  scruples.  The  true  question  has  been  already  stated 
from  the  authority  of  Mr.  Justice  Downes,  and  the  question  is,  Has 
justice  been  done  ? 

It  is  a  matter,  upon  which  scarce  any  understanding  would 
condescend  to  hesitate,  whether  a  man  had  been  fairly  tried,  whose 
triors  had  been  collected  together  by  an  avowed  enemy,  whose 
conduct  had  been  such,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that  he  had  purposely 
brought  prejudiced  men  into  the  box. 

In  every  country,  where  freedom  obtains,  there  must  subsist  parties. 
In  this  country  and  in  Great  Britain,  I  trust  there  never  will  be 
a  time,  wlien  there  shall  not  be  men  found  zealous  for  the  actual 
government  of  the  day.  So,  on  the  other  hand,  I  trust,  there  will 
never  be  a  time,  when  there  will  not  be  found  men  zealous  and 
enthusiastic  in  the  cause  of  popular  freedom  and  of  the  public  rights. 
If,  therefore,  a  person  in  public  office  suffi3rs  his  own  prejudices, 
however  honestly  anxious  he  may  be  for  a  prosecution  carried  on  by 
those  to  Avhom  he  is  attached,  to  influence  him  so  far  as  to  choose  men 
to  his  knowledge,  devoted  to  the  principles  he  espouses,  it  is  an  error 
which  a  high  court  of  judicature,  seeking  to  do  right  and  justice,  will 
not  fail  to  correct. 

A  sheriff,  in  such  a  case,  might  not  have  perceived  the  partiality  of 
his  conduct,  because  he  was  surveying  it  through  the  medium  of 
prejudice  and  habitual  corruption.  But  it  is  impossible  to  think  that 
this  sheriff  meant  to  be  impartial,  it  is  an  interpretation  more 
favourable  than  his  conduct  will  allow  of;  if  he  deserves  any  credit 
at  all,  it  is  in  not  answering  the  charge  made  against  him :  At 
the  same  time,  that,  by  not  answering  it,  he  has  left  unimpeached  the 
credit  of  the  charge  itself. 

[Here  the  sheriff  tendei-ed  some  form  of  an  affidavit,  which  the 
court  refused  to  have  sworn  or  read,  for  the  same  reason  that  those, 
sworn  and  tendered  by  the  defendant's  counsel,  had  been  before 
refused.  Mr.  Curran,  however,  consented  to  its  being  sworn  and 
read ;  but  the  Attoi*ney-General  declined  it,  being  unacquainted  with 
the  contents,  and  uninstructed  as  to  its  tendency ;  it  therefore  was 
not  sworn.] 

Mr.  CuRBAN — Is  this  then  the  way  to  meet  a  fair  application  to  the 
court,  to  see  whether  justice  has  been  done  between  the  subject  and 


AKCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  135 

the  crown.  I  oifer  it  again,  let  the  affidavit  be  read.  And  let  me 
remind  the  court,  that  the  great  reason  for  sending  a  cause  back  to  a 
jury,  is,  that  new  light  may  be  shed  upon  it ;  and  how  must  your 
lordships  feel,  when  you  see  that  indulgence  granted  to  the  conscience 
of  the  juiy,  denied  to  the  coui't? 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  am  concerned  that  any  lawyer  should 
make  a  proposition  in  the  iBanner  Mr.  Curran  has  done ;  he  proposes 
to  have  an  affidavit  read,  provided  we  consent  that  others,  w^hich  the 
court  have  already  refused,  should  be  now  read,*  I  did  not  hear 
it  offered  ;  but  is  it  to  be  presumed  I  will  consent  to  have  an  affidavit 
read,  about  which  I  know  nothing  ?  Yesterday,  without  any  commu- 
nication with  a  human  being,  I  did  say,  that  I  conceived  it  unnecessary 
to  answer  any  of  the  affidavits,  thinking  that  they  were  not  sufficient 
to  ground  the  application  made  to  the  court.  And  it  is  presumed  I 
am  so  mad  as  to  consent  to  the  reading  of  affidavits,  which  I  have  not 
seen? 

[Here  some  altercation  took  place,  and  Loi'd  Clonmel,  Chief- 
Justice,  interposed,  saying,  that  the  counsel  had  certainly  a  right  to 
argue  it  upon  the  ground,  that  the  sheriff  was  biassed,  and  did  return 
a  jury  prejudiced  against  the  traverser.] 

Mr.  Curran  was  then  proceeding  to  observe  upon  the  expression  of 
one  of  the  jury,  sworn  to  in  another  affidavit,  "That  there  would  be 
no  safety  in  the  country,  until  the  defendant  w^as  either  hanged 
or  banished."  When  it  was  asked  by  the  court,  whether  the  time 
of  its  coming  to  the  knowledge  of  the  traverser,  that  the  sheriff 
was  biassed,  was  stated  in  his  affidavit  ? 

Mr.  Curran  answered,  he  was  in  prison,  and  could  not  have  the 
attendance  of  those  counsel,  whose  assistance  he  had  in  court,  and 
besides,  from  the  natitre  of  the  circumstances,  it  w^as  impossible  he 
could  have  been  sufficiently  apprised  of  its  consequences,  for  he  saw 
not  that  pannel  till  the  day  of  the  trial,  when  he  could  not  have  had 
time  to  make  any  inquiry  into  the  characters,  dispositions,  or  con- 
nections of  the  jury.  Mr.  Curran  then  reverted  to  his  argument  on 
the  expression  of  the  juror. 

If  triors  had  been  appointed  to  determine  the  issue,  favourable  or 
not,  what  would  have  been  their  finding?  Could  they  say  upon  their 
oaths,  that  he  was  not  unfavourable  to  that  party,  against  whom  he 
could  make  such  a  declaration  ? 

Favour  is  not  cause  of  principal  challenge,  which  if  put  upon  a 
pleading,  w^ould  conclude  the  party.  Favour  is  that  which  makes  the 
man,  in  vulgar  parlance,  unfit  to  try  the  question.  And  as  to  the 
time  these  facts  came  to  his  knowledge,  he  has  sworn  that  he  was 
utterly  ignorant  of  them  at  the  time  of  his  coming  into  court  to  take 
his  trial. 

I  will  not  glance  at  the  character  of  any  absent  noble  pei'son,  high 
in  office,  but  let  it  be  remembered,  that  it  is  a  government  prosecu- 
tion, and  that  the  witness  has,  from  a  low  and  handicap  situation, 
scraped  himself  into  preferment,  perhaps,  for  I  will  put  the  best  con- 

*  It  may  not  be  improper  to  observe,  that  Mr.  Attorney-General  mistook 
Mr.  Curran's  proposal,  which  was  an  unqualified  offer  to  have  Mr.  Giftard's 
affidavit  read. 


136  TRIAL,   OF 

struction  upon  it,  by  offering  himself  as  a  man  honestly  anxious  for 
the  welfare  of  his  country  ;  in  short,  it  is  too  obvious  to  require  any 
comment,  what  the  nature  of  the  whole  transaction  has  been,  that 
he  had  got  his  commission  as  a  compensation,  pro  labore  impen- 
dendo,  and  came  afterwards  into  court  to  pay  down  the  stipulated 
purchase. 

Had  this  then  been  an  unbiassed  juiy,  was  there  not  something  in 
all  these  circumstances,  that  might  have  afforded  more  deliberation, 
than  that  of  one  minute  per  man,  for  only  so  long  was  the  jury  out ; 
and  had  this  been  a  fair  witness,  would  he  have  lain  down  under  a 
charge,  which  if  true,  ought  not  only  to  damn  this  verdict,  but  his 
character  for  ever  ?  What  would  a  corps  of  brother  officers  think  of 
a  person  charged,  upon  oath,  with  the  commission  of  two  wilful  per- 
juries, and  that  chai'ge  remaining  undenied  ?  Here  is  an  undenied 
charge,  in  point  of  fact,  and  although  I  do  not  call  upon  the  court  to 
say,  that  this  is  a  guilty  and  abominable  person,  yet  surely  the  sus- 
picion is  strongly  so,  and  must  be  considered.  This  was  at  least  a 
verdict,  where  the  evidence  went  to  the  jury  under  slighter  blemishes 
than  it  will  if  my  client  has  the  advantage  of  another  trial,  for  then 
he  Avill  put  out  of  the  power  of  man  to  doubt  that  this  witness  has 
been  perjured.  This  witness,  who  has  had  notice,  both  here  and  at 
the  trial,  of  the  aspersions  on  his  chai-acter,  yet  has  not  called 
a  human  being  to  say  that  he  entertained  a  contrary  opinion  of  him. 

AYas  he  known  any  where  ?  Did  he  crawl  unobserved  to  the  castle  ? 
Was  it  without  the  aid  or  knowledge  of  any  body,  that  that  gaudy 
plumage  grew  on  him,  in  which  he  appeared  in  court  ?  If  he  was 
known  for  any  tiling  else  than  wliat  he  is  stated  to  be,  it  was,  upon 
that  day,  almost  a  physical  impossibility,  in  a  court-house,  which 
almost  contained  the  country,  not  to  have  found  some  person,  to  give 
some  sort  of  testimony  respecting  his  general  character.  For  though 
no  man  is  bound  to  be  ready  at  all  times  to  answer  particular  charges, 
yet  every  man  is  supposed  to  come  with  his  public  attestation  of  com- 
mon and  general  probity.  But  he  has  left  that  character,  upon  the 
merits  of  which  my  client  is  convicted,  unsupported,  even  by  his  own 
poor  corporal  swearing.  You  are  called  upon,  then,  to  say,  whether 
upon  the  evidence  of  a  being  of  this  kind,  such  a  man  as  that  is  to  be 
convicted,  and  sentenced  to  punishment,  in  a  country  where  humanity 
is  the  leading  feature,  even  of  the  criminal  law. 

He  then  observed  upon  the  second  witness. — A  man  coming  to 
support  the  credit  of  another  collaterally,  is  himself  particularly 
pledged ;  then  what  was  his  testimony  ?  He  did  not  know  whether 
Mr.  Giffard  was  concerned  in  the  newspaper !  And  now  you  have 
the  silence  of  Giffard  himself,  in  not  answering  Mr.  Rowan's  affidavit 
to  contradict  that.  And  next,  he  did  not  know  whether  his  own 
cousin-german  was  the  relation  of  their  common  uncle !  I  call 
upon  you,  my  lords,  in  the  name  of  sacred  justice,  and  your  country, 
to  declare  whether  the  melancholy  scenes  and  murderous  plots  of  the 
Meal-tub  and  tlie  Rye-house,  are  to  be  acted  over  again.  And 
whether  every  Titus  Gates  that  can  be  found,  is  to  be  called  into  your 
courts,  as  the  common  vouchee  of  base  and  perjured  accusation. 

He  then  proceeded  to  another  ground,  namely,  that  the  direction  of 
the  court  was  not,  as  he  conceived,  agreeable  to  the  law  of  Ireland. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  137 

The  defence  of  my  client  (he  added)  was  rested  upon  this,  that  there 
was  no  evidence  of  the  fact  of  publication,  upon  the  incredibility  of 
the  fact,  and  the  circumstances  of  discredit  in  the  character  of  the 
witness  ;  yet  the  court  made  this  observation :  "  gentlemen,  it  scarcely 
lies  in  the  mouth  of  Mr.  Rowan  to  build  a  defence  upon  objections  of 
this  kind  to  the  chai'acters  of  witnesses,  because  the  fact  was  public  ; 
there  were  many  there  ;  the  room  was  crowded  below ;  the  gallery  was 
crowded  above ;  and  the  publicity  of  the  fact  enabled  him  to  produce  a 
number  of  witnesses  to  falsify  the  assertion  of  the  prosecutor,  if  in  fact 
it  could  be  falsified!"  Is  that  the  principle  of  the  criminal  law?  Is  it  a 
part  of  the  British  law  that  the  fate  of  the  accused  shall  abide,  not  the 
positive  establishment  of  guilt  by  the  prosecutor,  but  the  negative  proof 
of  innocence  by  himself?  Why  has  it  been  said  in  foolish  old  books,  that 
the  law  supposes  the  innocence  of  every  man  till  the  contrary  is  proved  ? 
How  has  it  happened  that  that  language  has  been  admired  for  its 
humanity,  and  not  laughed  at  for  its  absurdity,  in  which  the  prayers 
of  the  court  are  addressed  to  Heaven  for  the  safe  deliverance  of  the 
man  accused  ?  How  comes  it  that  so  much  public  time  is  wasted  in 
going  into  evidence  of  guilt,  if  the  bare  accusation  of  a  man  did  call 
upon  him  to  go  into  evidence  of  his  innocence  ?  The  foi-ce  of  the 
observation  is  this,  Mr.  Rowan  impeaches  the  credit  of  a  witness, 
who  has  sworn  that  he  saw  him  present,  and  doing  certain  acts  at  a 
certain  meeting  ;  but  it  is  asked  has  he  substantiated  that  discredit, 
by  calling  all  the  persons,  who  were  present,  to  prove  his  absence 
from  that  meeting,  which  is  only  stated  to  have  existed,  by  a  witness 
whom  he  alleges  to  have  perjured  himself.  I  call  upon  the  example 
of  judicial  character;  upon  the  faith  of  that  high  office,  which  is 
never  so  dignified  as  when  it  sees  its  errors  and  corrects  them,  to  say, 
that  the  court  was  for  a  moment  led  away,  so  as  to  argue  from  the 
most  seductive  of  all  sophisms,  that  of  the  petitio  principii. 

See  what  meaning  is  to  be  gathered  from  such  words ;  we  say  the 
whole  that  this  man  has  sworn  is  a  consumate  lie  ;  shew  it  to  be  so, 
says  the  court,  by  admitting  a  part  of  it  to  be  true.  It  is  a  false 
swearing  ;  it  is  a  conspiracy  of  two  witnesses  against  this  defendant ; 
well  then  it  lies  upon  him  to  rebut  their  testimony,  by  proving  a 
great  deal  of  it  to  be  true  !  Is  conjecture  then,  in  criminal  cases,  to 
stand  in  the  place  of  truth  and  demonstration  ?  Why  were  not  some 
of  those  (I  will  strip  the  case  of  the  honour  of  names  which  I 
respect) — but  why  were  not  some  of  those,  who  knew  that  these 
two  persons  were  to  be  brought  forward  and  that  there  were  to 
be  objections  to  their  credit — if,  as  it  is  stated,  it  happened  in 
the  presence  of  a  public  crowd,  rushing  in  from  motives  of  curiosity, 
why  were  not  numbers  called  on  to  establish  that  fact?  On 
the  contrary,  the  court  have  said  to  this  effect :  Mr.  Rowan,  you 
say  you  were  not  there  ;  produce  any  of  those  persons  with  whom 
you  were  there,  to  swear  you  were  not  there  !  You  say  it  was  a 
peijury  ;  if  so,  produce  the  people  that  he  has  perjured  himself  in 
swearing  to  have  been  there !  But  as  to  your  own  being  there  you 
can  easily  shew  the  contrary  of  that,  by  producing  some  man  that 
saw  you  there  !  You  say  you  were  not  there  ?  Yes.  There  were 
one  hundred  and  fifty  persons  there  ;  now  produce  any  one  of  those 
to  swear  they  saw  you  there  ! 


138  TRIAL,   OF 

It  is  impossible  for  the  human  mind  to  suppose  a  case,  in  which 
infatuation  must  have  prevailed  in  a  more  progressive  degree,  than 
when  a  jury  are  thus,  in  fact,  directed  to  receive  no  refutation,  nor 
proof  of  the  perjury  of  the  witness,  but  only  of  his  truth.  We  will 
permit  you  to  deny  the  charge  by  establishing  the  fact :  we  will 
permit  you  to  prove  that  they  swore  falsely  to  your  being  there,  by 
producing  another  witness  to  prove  to  a  certainty  that  you  were  there. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice — The  reasoning  of  the  court  was 
strong  upon  that  point ;  this  is  a  transaction  stated  by  the  witness  to 
have  happened  in  open  day,  in  a  croAvded  assembly  in  the  capital, 
amidst  a  nvimber  of  persons  dressed  in  the  uniform  of  Hamilton 
Rowan.  There  has  been  nothing  suddenly  brought  forward  to  sur- 
prise the  traverser ;  yet  what  has  he  done,  did  he  offer  as  in  the 
common  course  to  prove  an  alibi  ?  It  is  stated  to  be  at  such  a  day  ; 
the  witness  swears  at  such  an  hour — the  place  is  sworn  to  have  been 
full  of  people,  of  Mr.  Rowan's  friends  :  but  if  there  was  even  a 
partial  assembly,  it  would  be  easy  still  to  produce  some  one  of  those 
persons  who  were  present  to  say,  that  the  fact  did  not  happen  which 
has  been  sworn  to,  or  if  you  say  Mr.  Rowan  was  not  there,  it  is  easier 
still  to  prove  it  by  shewing  where  he  was  ;  as  thus  :  I  breakfasted 
with  him,  I  dined  with  him,  I  supped  with  him,  he  was  with  me,  he 
was  not  at  Pardon's  ;  disprove  that  assertion  by  proving  an  affirma- 
tion inconsistent  with  it. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  beg  leave  to  remind  the  court  of  what  fell  from  it. 
"  He  may  call"  (said  the  court)  "  any  of  those  persons,  he  has  not 
produced  one  of  them  ;"  upon  this,  I  think,  a  most  material  point  does 
hang.  "  He  might  have  called  them,  for  they  were  all  of  his  own 
party." 

Lord  CiiONMEL — That  is,  if  there  were  such  persons  there  ;  or  if 
there  was  no  meeting  at  all  he  might  have  proved  that. 

Mr.  CuRRAN There  was  no  such  idea  put  to  the  jury,  as  whether 

there  was  a  meeting  or  not :  it  was  said  they  were  all  of  his  party, 
he  might  have  produced  them,  and  the  non-production  of  them  was  a 
"  volume  of  evidence"  upon  that  point.  No  refinement  can  avoid 
this  conclusion,  that  even  as  your  lordship  now  states  the  charge,  the 
fate  of  the  man  must  depend  upon  proving  the  negative. 

Until  the  credit  of  the  witness  was  established  he  could  not  be 
called  upon  to  bring  any  contrary  evidence.  What  does  the  duty  of 
every  counsel  dictate  to  him ;  if  the  case  is  not  made  out  by  his 
adversary  or  prosecutor  ?  Let  it  rest ;  the  court  is  bound  to  tell  the 
jury  so,  and  the  jury  are  boinid  to  find  him  not  guilty.  It  is  a  most 
unshaken  maxim,  that  nemo  tenetur  prodere  se  ipsum.  And  it  would 
indeed  be  a  very  inquisitorial  exercise  of  power,  to  call  upon  a  man 
to  run  the  risque  of  confirming  the  charge,  under  the  penalty  of 
being  convicted  by  nil  dicit.  Surely  at  the  criminal  side  of  this 
court,  as  yet,  there  has  been  no  such  judgment  pronounced.  It 
is  only  when  the  party  stands  mute  of  malice,  that  such  ex- 
tremes can  be  resorted  to.  I  never  before  heard  an  intimation 
from  any  judge  to  a  jury,  that  bad  evidence  liable  to  any 
and  every  exception  ought  to  receive  a  sanction  from  the  silence 
of  the  party.  The  substance  of  the  chai'ge  was  neither  more 
nor  less  than  this  ;  that  the  falsehood  of  the  evidence  shall  receive 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  139 

support  and  credit  from  the  silence  of  the  man  accused.  With  anxiety 
for  the  honour  and  religion  of  the  law,  I  demand  it  of  you,  must  not 
the  jury  have  understood  that  this  silence  was  evidence  to  go  to 
them  ;  is  the  meaning  contained  in  the  expression  "  a  volume  of 
evidence,"  only  insinuation  !  I  do  not  know  where  any  man  would  he 
false.  I  do  not  know  what  any  man  coukl  do  to  screen  himself  from 
persecution ;  I  know  not  how  he  could  be  sure,  even  when  he  was  at 
his  prayers  before  the  throne  of  Heaven,  that  he  was  not  passing 
that  moment  of  his  life,  on  which  he  was  to  be  charged  with  the 
commission  of  some  crime,  to  be  expiated  to  society  by  the  forfeiture 
of  his  liberty  or  of  his  life.  I  do  not  know  what  shall  become  of 
the  subject,  if  a  jury  ai'e  to  be  told  that  the  silence  of  the  man 
charged  is  a  "  volume  of  evidence,"  that  he  is  guilty  of  the  crime  ; 
where  is  it  written  ?  I  know  there  is  a  place  where  vulgar  frenzy 
cries  out,  that  the  public  instrument  must  be  drenched  in  blood  ; 
where  defence  is  gagged,  and  the  devoted  wretch  must  perish.  But 
even  there  the  victim  of  such  tyranny  is  not  made  to  fill,  by  voluntary 
silence,  the  defects  of  his  accusation,  for  his  tongue  is  tied,  and 
therefore  no  advantage  is  taken  of  him  by  construction  ;  it  cannot 
be  there  said  that  his  not  speaking  is  a  volume  of  evidence  to  prove 
his  guilt. 

But  to  avoid  all  misunderstanding,  see  what  is  the  force  of  my 
objection  ;  is  it  that  the  charge  of  the  court  cannot  receive  a  prac- 
ticable interpretation,  that  may  not  terrify  men's  minds  with  ideas 
such  as  I  have  presented  ?  No — I  am  saying  no  such  thing,  I  have 
lived  too  long  and  observed  too  much  not  to  know,  that  every  word 
in  a  phrase  is  one  of  the  feet  upon  which  it  runs,  and  how  the 
shortening  or  lengthening  of  one  of  those  feet,  will  alter  the  progress 
or  direction  of  its  motion.  I  am  not  arguing  that  the  charge  of  the 
court  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  reconciled  to  the  principles  of  law ; 
I  am  agitating  a  greater  question  ;  I  am  putting  it  to  the  conscience 
of  the  court,  whether  a  jury  may  not  have  probably  collected  the 
same  meaning  fi-om  it,  which  I  have  affixed  to  it,  and  whether  there 
ought  not  to  have  been  a  volume  of  explanation,  to  do  away  the 
fatal  consequences  of  such  mistake. 

On  what  sort  of  a  case  am  I  now  speaking  ?  on  one  of  that  kind, 
which  it  is  kno^vn  has  been  beating  the  public  heart  for  many  months; 
which,  from  a  single  being  in  society,  has  scarcely  received  a  cool  or 
tranquil  examination.  I  am  making  that  sort  of  application,  which 
the  expansion  of  liberal  reason  and  the  decay  of  technical  bigotry 
have  made  a  favoured  application. 

In  earlier  times  it  might  have  been  thought  sacrilege  to  have 
meddled  with  a  verdict  once  pronounced ;  since  that  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  justice  have  been  better  understood  ;  so  that  now,  the  whole 
wisdom  of  the  whole  court  will  have  an  opportunity  of  looking  over 
that  verdict,  and  setting  right  the  mistake  which  has  occasioned  it. 

Mr.  Curran  made  other  observations,  either  to  corroborate  his  own, 
or  to  answer  the  opposite  counsel ;  of  which  it  is  impossible  to  give 
an  exact  detail ;  and  concluded  thus  :  You  are  standing  on  the  scanty 
isthmus  that  divides  the  great  ocean  of  duration  ;  on  one  side  of  the 
past,  on  the  other  of  the  future ;  a  ground,  that  while  you  yet  hear 
me,  is  washed  from  beneath  our  feet.     Let   me  remind  you,  my  lord, 


140  TRIAL   OF 

while  your  determination  is  yet  in  your  power,  dum  versatur  adhuc 
intra  penetralia  Vestce,  that  on  that  ocean  of  future  you  must  set  your 
judgment  afloat.  And  future  ages  will  assume  the  same  authority, 
which  you  have  assumed ;  posterity  feel  the  same  emotions  which 
you  have  felt,  when  your  little  hearts  have  beaten,  and  your  infant 
eyes  have  overflowed,  at  reading  the  sad  history  of  the  sufferings  of 
a  Russel  or  a  Sidney. 

[The  conclusion  of  Mr.  Curran's  speech  was  marked  by  another 
burst  of  applause,  similar  to  those  which  accompanied  his  former 
exertions  in  this  cause.] 

Wednesday,   February  5,  1794. 

Mr.  Attorney- General,  for  the  ci-own My  Lords,  it  is  my  busi- 
ness to  offer  such  arguments  as  occur  to  me,  to  resist  what  has  been 
advanced  in  favour  of  Mr.  Rowan,  upon  this  motion  to  set  aside  the 
verdict  and  grant  a  new  trial.  It  is  to  me,  my  lords,  a  great  happi- 
ness, that  it  has  arrived  at  this  stage,  when  the  subject  will  be 
examined  by  the  rules  of  legal  reasoning,  without  an  appeal  to  the 
passions  of  men,  or  any  attempt  to  influence  the  argument  by  topics 
deduced  from  extrinsic  matter.  I  should  be  sorry  when  I  return  to 
my  own  house,  that  passion  should  so  far  make  me  forget  my  reason. 
It  is  the  duty  of  every  man,  whether  prosecutor  or  advocate  for  the 
prosecuted,  to  promote  the  ends  of  justice,  and  obtain  decisions  upon 
argument,  and  argument  alone.  It  is  not  the  duty  of  counsel  to 
determine  the  weight  of  argument ;  they  are  to  offer  the  best  argu- 
ments they  can  ;  when  they  pass  that,  they   pass  the  bounds  of  duty. 

This,  my  lords,  is  said  to  be  a  verdict  against  evidence,  because 
the  credit  of  the  principal  witness  was  such,  as  that  he  deserved  no 
credit,  and  that  now,  if  the  verdict  be  set  aside,  new  evidence  will 
be  offered,  since  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  party,  further  to  shew 
that  the  witness  did  not  deserve  credit.  Another  ground  is  this,  that 
the  sheriff,  who  returned  the  jury,  had  a  prejudice  against  the 
accused,  and  laboured  to  procure  a  pannel  prejudicial  against  Mr. 
Kowan.  Another  ground  is,  that  one  of  the  jurors  had  expressed 
himself  in  a  certain  way,  shewing  he  had  an  ill  opinion  of  Mr.  Rowan 
upon  some  subject  or  other.  Such,  my  lords,  are  the  grounds  spe- 
cifled  in  the  notice.  A  further  objection  was  made  from  the  bar,  of 
which  no  notice  was  given,  namely,  that  one  of  the  judges  had  mis- 
directed the  jury.  K  there  be  any  weight  in  it,  the  party  by  strict 
form  can  derive  no  advantage  from  it — but  I  do  not  confine  myself 
to  form ;  it  is  my  desire  that  this  matter  should  be  fairly  inquired 
into  according  to  the  rules  of  law  ;  therefore  I  will  observe  upon  that, 
and  make  such  answer  to  it  as  occurs  to  me,  first  calling  upon  your 
lordships  and  the  gentlemen  in  this  court,  for  beyond  that  I  desire 
no  attention,  to  give  me  an  impartial  hearing.  I  appeal  to  those  only 
who  have  knowledge  of  law  and  the  rules  of  cool  reason  ;  the  rest  is 
matter  of  indifference.  My  lords,  this  information  was  filed  a  year 
since  against  Mr.  Rowan  ;  he  was  arrested  upon  a  previous  infor- 
mation which  was  returned  to  the  Crown-office  in  Hilary  Term,  1793, 
a  noli  prosequi  was  entered  upon  that,  by  reason  of  a  mistake  in 
cojjying  one  of  the  words,  so  that  if  brought  to  trial,  he  must  have 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  141 

been  acquitted  without  entering  into  the  merits.  Another  information 
was  filed  ;  that  was  pleaded  to,  and  immediately  an  application  was 
made  to  have  him  tried  in  Michaelmas  Term.  The  court  conceived 
that,  consistent  with  the  discharge  of  general  duty,  it  was  impossible 
to  have  him  ti'ied  then,  and  this  term  was  appointed.  The  pannel 
was  returned  to  the  office  in  the  usual  manner ;  I  have  a  right  to  say 
so,  because  there  is  no  suggestion  to  the  contrary ;  and  it  Avas  open 
to  any  man  who  pleased  to  look  at  it.  On  Wednesday  se'nnight  the 
record  came  to  be  tried.  The  jury  were  called  at  ten  o'clock  ;  they 
were  called  a  second  time,  a  third  time,  and  a  fourth  time ;  and  it 
was  not  till  near  twelve  o'clock  that  the  jury  were  sworn.  All  that 
time  there  was  no  challenge  taken  to  the  array.  No  application  was 
previously  made,  no  suggestion  filed  to  have  the  venire  directed  to 
any  other  officer  than  the  gentleman  who  returned  the  pannel.  But 
when  the  jurors  were  called  to  the  book,  several  were  challenged 
and  a  pretty  general  question  was  put  to  several,  I  do  not  say  to  all 
of  them,  to  declare  whether  they  had  delivered  any  opinion  upon  the 

case.     To  that  question  I  beg  attention  from  every  impartial  man 

they  were  permitted  to  give  answers,  though  I  rely  upon  it,  that  by 
law,  in  a  criminal  case,  the  party  had  no  right  to  put  such  a  question. 
So  that  after  an  hour  and  half  s  deliberation,  the  party  knowing  who 
were  to  be  called,  such  as  were  thovight  proper  to  be  questioned,  were 
examined  and  permitted  to  answer.  But  the  fairness  with  which  this 
prosecution  was  intendetl  to  be  conducted  is  manifested  by  another 
circumstance.  A  juror  of  the  name  of  Dickson  was  actually  sworn, 
and  afterwards  he  said  he  had  given  an  opinion — it  was  desired  that 
he  might  be  discharged.  I  instantly  gave  my  consent.  Mr.  Curran 
desired  not  my  consent,  but  that  I  should  move  it  myself ;  I  did 
move  it,  because  I  thought  it  was  right  to  have  him  discharged.  The 
jury  were  then  sworn  and  the  merits  were  gone  into.  Two  witnesses 
were  produced,  one  swearing  to  the  actual  fact  of  publishing  the  very 
paper  in  the  record  ;  another,  who  though  he  did  not  swear  to  the 
very  paper,  yet  did  give  such  evidence  as,  if  he  was  worthy  of 
credit,  must  give  every  reasonable  man  conviction,  that  it  was  the 
very  same  libel.  Three  witnesses  were  produced  and  examined  to 
the  credit  of  Lystei*,  the  witness  for  the  crown  ;  one  did  not  say  he 
was  unworthy  of  credit,  but  that  he  would  hesitate  ;  another  was  not 
much  inclined  to  give  him  belief ;  and  it  is  insisted  that  such  evidence 
was  direct  and  positive  to  take  away  his  credit,  and  therefore  your 
lordships  should  set  aside  this  verdict.  The  cross-examination  by 
the  counsel  for  Mr.  Rowan  throughout,  directly  and  in  terms,  ad- 
mitted that  there  was  a  meeting  that  day  at  Cope-street,  that  Mr. 
Rowan  was  there,  and  that  the  Volunteers  were  there  assembled  ;  the 
whole  cross-examination  went  to  that  fact ;  the  dress  and  uniform  of 
the  old  Volunteers,  every  fact  was  insisted  upon,  and  it  was  not  until 
yesterday,  in  a  kind  of  joke,  that  the  contrary  was  insisted  upon. 
Mr.  Rowan's  affidavit  does  not  deny  the  meeting.  Away,  therefore, 
with  the  childish  observation,  that  a  man  could  not  be  called  from  a 
meeting  which  did  not  appear  to  exist. 

I  will  now  come  to  the  merits  of  the  case  upon  the  objections  made. 
There  was  nothing  omitted  which  could  be  said  for  Mr.  Rowan  :  it 
is  not  fit   for  me  to   say  that   anything  was  said  which  ought   not  to 


142  TRIAL    OF 

have  been  said.  But,  my  lords,  something  was  said  with  regard  to 
the  right  of  courts  to  set  aside  verdicts  in  criminal  cases,  not  capital : 
no  man  disputed  the  right,  or  questioned  it.  Mr.  Curran  went  into 
the  history  of  that  branch  of  the  law  and  the  doctrine  of  setting  aside 
verdicts  rege  inconsulto  ;  how  it  was  with  regard  to  ancient  times, 
I  am  not  satisfied  ;  but  sure  I  am,  and  so  I  hope  it  will  remain,  that 
this  court  will  have  a  right  in  favour  of  the  defendant,  and  in  his 
favour  only,  to  set  aside  a  verdict  against  him.  But  the  exercise  of 
that  great  power,  touching  the  trial  by  jury,  must  be  applied  according 
to  the  known  rules  of  law.  Mr.  Curran  stated  that  an  exact  instance 
was  not  to  be  found  in  the  books,  and  from  the  hurry,  I  suppose,  in 
which  he  had  considered  the  subject,  he  fell  into  the  observation  that 
the  practice  is  of  so  modern  a  date  that  many  jjrecedents  could  not 
be  found  :  he  confined  it  to  the  two  last  reigns  ;  but,  my  lords,  the 
reports  in  William  Ill's  time  are  full  of  such  applications  ;  the 
practice  prevailed  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  how  much  earlier  I  cannot 
say — there  are  an  infinity  of  cases  upon  the  subject,  and  he  was  right 
when  he  said  there  was  no  such  case  as  this  ;  and  before  your  lordships 
make  a  precedent  of  this,  I  am  sure  you  will  give  it  all  the  attention 
it  deserves.  I  repeat  the  observation,  that  the  consequence  of  this 
determination  to  the  public  and  the  administration  of  criminal  justice, 
is  of  the  last  importance ;  and  that,  however  right  it  is,  that  Mr. 
Rowan  should  seek  redress  by  these  means,  and  that  every  possible 
exertion  should  be  made  in  favour  of  a  man  standing  a  culprit  at 
your  bar  ;  yet,  my  lords,  the  consideration  of  that  man,  or  any  other, 
let  him  be  who  he  may,  dwindles  to  a  thing  of  no  value,  when  com- 
pared to  the  general  justice  of  the  country.  There  can  be  no 
distinction  here  ;  and  here  alone  there  is  equality  among  subjects, 
between  tlie  liighest  man  in  the  state,  and  the  men  who  shout  in  the 
hall  at  the  names  of  Titus  Gates*  and  Algernon  Sidney ,|  The  case, 
my  lords,  comes  then  to  this,  whether  upon  the  afl[idavits  which  have 
been  made  you  should  set  aside  this  verdict  ?  They  say  these  affi- 
davits are  to  be  taken  as  true — I  say  they  are  not :  they  Avere  made 
and  produced  in  court  in  my  absence.  I  was  called — I  knew  no  more 
of  them  than  the  man  in  Westminster-hall.  I  heard  them  read,  and 
it  did  strike  me,  that  they  were  of  such  a  nature,  that  I  ought  not  to 
give  an  answer  to  them  ;  I  therefore  did  not  consent  to  a  Rule  unless 
cause,  but  was  I'eady  to  meet  the  counsel  at  the  moment.  It  is  to  be 
taken  as  true  that  such  affidavits  are  made ;  that  Mr.  Rowan  can  find 
two  witnesses  swearing  to  those  facts  which  have  been  mentioned ; 
but  it  cannot  be  taken  as  true  that  those  alleged  facts  are  true  ;  it  is 
not  for  your  lordships  to  say  they  are  true  or  false  ;  nor  if  witnesses 
were  found  to  say  that  what  has  been  stated  respecting  Perrin  was 
false,  could  you  determine  that  ?  but  whether  you  send  it  back  to  see 
whether  a  jury  would  give  them  credit  or  not,  that  is  what  you  are 
to  determine  ;  you  are  to  send  it  back  to  let  in  the  same  species  of 
evidence  which  has  been  already  addviced  without  success.  As  to 
Mr.  Rowan's  affidavit,  he  swears  to  something  he  heard,  and  something 

*  See  Oates's  Trial ;  10th  Howell's  St.  Tr.  ;  and  the  trials  connected  with  the 
Popish  Plots,  6  and  7  Howell's  St.  Tr. 

t   Sidney's  Case,  9  Howell's  St.  Tr.  p.  817. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  143 

he  believes — that  must  be  taken  as  true  ;  that  is,  that  he  heard 
something  and  that  he  believes  it — if  that  were  a  ground  for  a  new 
trial,  verdict  may  be  had  after  verdict.     Something  has  been  spread 
abroad,  that  your  minds  might  be  influenced   by  something  without 
doors — a  thing  impossible.     Let  the  cry  be  what  it  may  by  the  sedi- 
tious and   the   turbulent,   the  whole  will  be  thought  of  rightly  on  a 
future  day.     What  has  been   said   cannot  influence  you,   who  will 
determine  according  to  the  rules  of  law.     It  is  desii'ed   that  you  will 
set  aside  this  verdict,   that  evidence  may  be  given  to  show  Lyster  is 
not  worthy  of  your  credit.     Gentlemen   have   argued  this  case,  cer- 
tainly of  the  first  talents  and  ingenuity,  some  of  them  have  had  as  much 
experience  in   these  matters  as   any  gentleman  who  has   the  honour 
of  wearing  a  bar  gown  ;  but   I  must  say  some  little   things  fell  from 
them,  which   were   rather    extraordinary  ;    one  gentleman    said    he 
had  only  got  his  bi'ief  the  night  before  ;  another  said  he  had  got  his 
on  his  way  to  court ;  but  they  knew  the  affidavits  were  to  be  made, 
they  heard  them  read  the   day  before  ;  something  was  said  of  a  case 
which  had  M.  S.  opposite  to  it  in  the  margin.     I  believe  there  are 
not  many   gentlemen  who   could  recollect  cases  in  the  books  cited 
as  from   manuscript  cases,  and  quote   them   as  such  from  memory. 
I  have  used  great  diligence  upon  the   subject,   and   agree  with  Mr. 
Curran,  there  is  not  one  to  be  found.     You  are   desired  to  set  aside 
the  verdict,  because  the  witness  was  not  to  be  credited.     Who  made 
you  judges  of  that  ?     Are  you  the  guardians  of  the  lives,  the  liberties 
and  the   properties  of  the   people  ?     Which  of  you   determines  the 
credit   of  the  witnesses  ?     I   have  sat  at  my  lamp   the   most  of  the 
night  and  have  found  nothing  like  this.     But  I  will,  for  a  moment, 
suppose  what  I  do  not  admit,  that  it  might  be  a  ground  for  setting 
aside  the   verdict :  bring  it  to  the  test  of  reason,   bring  it  to  the 
bar  of  sense  where    it   should  be    tried.      You   are  to  set    aside  a 
verdict,  to  let  in  evidence  to  the   credit  of  a  witness,  when  his  credit 
was   impeached  ;    witnesses    were  examined    to    his  credit,    and    so 
strong  say  they  was  the    evidence    against  him,  that   it   ought   to 
have  destroyed  his  credit.     The  case  was  made,  witnesses  were  ex- 
amined,  and  the  whole  was  left  to  the  jury.     For,   my  lords,   it  is 
a  sad  mistake  Avhich  has   been  sent  abroad,  that  because  one  witness 
says  another  is  not  to  be  believed,  that  therefore,  Avhat .  the  first  says 
is  true.      Are  the  jury  to  give  up  all   the    circumstances  ?     Their 
own  observation   to  the  opinion  of  another  man  perhaps  as   much 
prejudiced  as    any?       But    here  the    matter  was   examined  ;    they 
were    prepared   with    evidence    to   the    history    of    this   man's    life, 
and  after  a  verdict  is  had  upon  that,  some   men  are  picked  up   in 
the  streets  to  give  some  evidence,  that  is,   that  they  do  not  believe 
the  witness,  to   eke  out   a  ground  for  setting  aside  the  verdict,  in 
a    case    where    the    objection    has   been  already  made    and    already 
tried.  Here  incidentally  let  me  observe  upon  another  part  of  the  case. 
The  verdict  is  against  evidence,  because  the  witnesses  were  not  to  be 
believed :    there    is  no  man  so  young  at  the  bar  as   not  to  see  the 
futility  of  such   an   argument :  a  man  may  have    discredited  himself 
upon  various  occasions,   and  yet  may  give  such  testimony,  accom- 
panied with  other  circumstances,  as  shall  entitle  him  to  belief,  though 


144  TRIAL   OV 

a  thousand  should  oppose  him.*  "  My  Good  Lord  Primate  of  Armagh 
do  you  know  Mr.  Lyster  r"  "  I  do,  I  have  known  him  concerned  in 
many  transactions  of  a  base  nature,  he  is  not  to  be  believed."  What  ? 
if  that  was  sworn  to  by  that  saint  upon  earth,  shall  the  positive 
swearing  discredit  the  testimony  though  it  be  accompanied  with 
cii'cumstances  which  speak  its  truth  ?  Can  that  be  law  ?  I  hope  not, 
for  it  is  not  reason.  There  are  cases  which  say  a  verdict  shall  not  be 
set  aside,  though  an  incompetent  witness  has  been  examined,  who  was 
not  known  to  be  incompetent  at  the  time.  That  is  a  stronger  case 
than  the  present,  and  applies  to  the  ground  of  objection  with  respect 
to  the  jury.  Turner  v.  Pearte,  1  Durnf.,  and  East.,  717.  Wright  v. 
Littler.  3  Bur.  1244.|  Here  I  must  trespass  upon  your  lordships  time 
to  take  notice  of  another  observation.  It  is  insisted  that  you  ought  the 
rather  to  let  him  in,  because  this  was  an  information  filed  ex  officio  by 
the  Attorney-General,  by  which  he  was  deprived  of  an  opi)ortunity 
of  knowing  the  witness  against  him,  and  consequently  that  though  in 
ordinary  cases  a  new  trial  ought  not  to  be  granted  upon  that  ground,  yet 
here  it  ought.  The  gentleman  who  made  this  observation,  was  here 
again  a  little  hurried,  for  if  he  had  reflected  one  moment,  he  would 
see  that  the  cases  are  precisely  the  same.  The  party  in  an  indictment 
has  no  right  to  see  the  examinations  till  trial,  and  sometimes  not  even 
then.  In  an  information  he  has  no  right  to  see  them.  So  that 
whether  it  be  an  information  or  an  indictment,  he  is  alike  forbid  to 
see  the  examination.  If  he  be  prosecuted  by  indictment,  the  examina- 
tion will  be  returned  to  the  crown-office.  If  by  information,  the 
examinations  are  put  into  the  same  crown-office  on  the  first  day 
of  the  term.  It  was  said  that  in  the  case  of  an  indictment,  what  was 
sworn  could  be  known.  All  that  could  appear  would  be  that  some  of 
the  grand  jury  might  foi'get  their  oaths  and  disclose  the  secrets  of  the 
prosecution,  though  they  are  especially  sworn  not  to  mention  what 
appears  upon  the  examinations.^  This  observation  was  made  without 
thought,  therefore,  and  could  not  have  been  made  for  any  good 
purpose  with  respect  to  this  motion  ;  it  was  made  for  nothing  but  to 
impress  the  people  with  an  idea  that  there  has  been  severity  or 
oppression  in  this  case,  not  allowable,  and  that  the  subject  has  been 
put  under  difficulties,  not  occurring  in  the  ordinary  course  of  justice. 
But  upon  a  cool  enquiry  it  will  be  found  that  the  manner  of  proceed- 
ing makes  no  difference  in  the  case.  If  there  be  any  way  by  which 
the  informations  in  the  crown-office  can  be  got  at  (I  hope  there 
is  not)  he  might  have  made  use  of  that ;  but  Mr.  Rowan  was  apprised ; 

*  As  to  what  shall  be  deemed  sufficient  to  derogate  from  the  credit  of  a  witness. 
See  Gates  Trial,  Howell  10,  p.  1185;  Canning's  Case,  Howell  19,  pages  434  and 
609;  Murphy's  Case,  Howell  19,  p.  719;  and  the  ease  of  Catherine  Nairn  and 
Patrick  Ogilvie,  Howell  19,  p.  1268. 

f  Lister  v.  Mundell,  1  Bos  and  Pull,  429.  In  this  case  the  court  said  that 
"  though  unusual  to  grant  a  new  trial  on  evidence  contradicting  the  testimony  on 
which  the  verdict  had  been  obtained,  discovered  subsequent  to  the  trial,  yet  as  the 
very  fact  on  which  these  witnesses  had  formed  themselves  were  falsified  by 
the  affidavits  produced,  they  thought  it  afforded  sufficient  ground  for  a  new  trial." 

J  See  the  grand  jury  oath  in  Shaftesbury's  case,  Howell  8,  759  ;  and  the 
extract  from  Burnet  in  the  note  on  tliat  case ;  Ibid.  772,  note ;  case  of  the 
Regicides,  Howell  5,  972,  note  ;  Raynard's  case,  Howell,  14,  p.  477. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTt)X  ROWAN.  145 

lie  came  here  with  witnesses  to  trace  facts  happening  at  various  times  ; 
he  put  his  defence  on  that.  Mr.  Lyster's  name  was  inserted  in  the 
papers,  and  it  was  notorious  for  many  months  that  he  was  the  man. 
But  I  disclaim  that,  your  lordships  have  no  right  to  know  it,  but  you 
know  that  Mr.  Rowan  came  prepared  with  witnesses  against  him. 
Another  observation  occurs.  I  will  suppose,  what  I  never  will 
admit  till  a  solemn  decision  is  had,  that  the  objection  made  on  account 
of  the  want  of  credit  would  be  a  good  ground  for  setting  aside 
the  verdict,  even  after  that  credit  had  been  examined  to,  or  provided 
no  witness  was  found  to  come  forward,  yet  you  cannot  entertain  this 
motion,  for  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the  evidence  since  the 
trial  is  not  sworn  to.  Mr.  Rowan  has  made  an  affidavit  that  he  did 
not  know  it ;  that  alRdavit  is  to  be  taken  as  true — I  believe  he  did 
not.  But  he  appeared  by  attorney,  he  defended  by  attorney,  and  it 
is  not  sworn  even  to  his  belief,  nor  has  his  attorney  sworn,  nor 
is  there  a  syllable  to  tell  you  that  those  concerned  for  him  were  not 
apprized  of  the  fact.  If  these  affidavits  be  admitted,  there  is  nothing 
to  be  done  but  conceal  everything  from  the  party,  to  keep  back  that 
which  may  eventually  serve  the  motion  for  a  new  trial,  in  case  of  any 
thing  against  him.  I  feel  that  if  this  were  an  ordinary  case,  the  bare 
statement  of  the  fact  would  drive  the  motion  out  of  court ;  the  fact 
has  been  enquired  into  by  the  jury  ;  notwithstanding  what  has  been 
said  of  the  witness,  he  may  have  told  the  truth,  and  it  is  impossible  it 
should  be  otherwise. 

The  other  objection  is  that  one  of  the  jurors  did  not  stand  indifferent ; 
a  ground  of  challenge  which  was  not  taken,  and  not  having  been 
taken,  the  verdict  shall  be  set  aside  and  the  party  have  a  new  trial. 
The  statute  law  has  directed  that  in  treason  the  party  shall  have 
a  copy  of  the  pannel  a  certain  number  of  days ;  in  no  other  case  has 
the  party  such  a  right,  he  is  to  take  his  challenge  as  the  party  comes 
to  the  book  ;  that  is  the  law  of  the  land,  that  has  been  the  simple  law 
under  which  ovir  ancestors  lived  happy  for  ages,  by  which  juries  have 
been  chosen  and  formed,  who  have  for  ages  protected  everything  dear 
to  Bx'itons  and  Irishmen ;  and  now,  for  the  first  time,  I  will  be  bold 
to  say,  in  any  criminal  or  civil  case,  the  verdict  is  to  be  set  aside 
because  there  lay  a  challenge  to  a  juror,  not  known  to  the  party  at 
the  time  of  the  verdict.  I  will  suppose  that  there  was  a  principal 
cause  of  challenge  to  this  man;  no  instance  of  such  a  case  can  be 
produced  where  that  was  a  ground  for  a  new  trial ;  there  is  no 
necessity  to  examine  further  into  the  circumstances ;  there  is  no 
cause  of  challenge  now  stated — What  is  it?  There  was  an  illumi- 
nation in  Dublin  last  August,  when  the  juror  and  Atkinson  fell  into 
conversation  of  and  concerning — What  ?  the  libel  calling  the  citizens 
to  arms?  No  such  thing — But  an  illumination  takes  place  for  the 
capture  of  a  town,  they  fall  into  a  conversation  about  the  Volunteers 
in  general,  in  which  the  juror  said,  the  country  could  not  prosper 
unless  Hamilton  Rowan  and  Napper  Tandy  were  hanged  or  trans- 
ported ;  not  a  syllable  respecting  the  matter  in  hand — Not  one  word  of 
this  matter.  Would  that  be  a  cause  of  challenge  to  a  juror?  Most 
undoubtedly  not — and  the  man  who  used  the  expression,  supj^osing 
he  did  use  it,  gave  no  cause  of  challenge,  and  now,  though  the  eleven 
others  agreed  in  that  verdict,  you  are  to  send  it  back  to  a  new  trial — 

1, 


146  TRIAL  OF 

For  what?  to  have  two  triors  sworn  to  ascertain  whether  Mr.  Perrin 
was  a  person  to  be  challenged   or  not.     The  juror  gave  an  opinion  of 
different  men  upon  a  political  subject.     What  man  is  there  who  has 
not  given  an  opinion  upon   such   a  subject  ?     If  there  be,  he  is  cold 
to  the  interests  of  his  country.    But  does  it  apply,  that  the  man  using 
such  expressions  is   not  competent  to  meet  a  question   of  facts  upon 
evidence  before  him,  though   the  party  may  be  concerned  in  a  par- 
ticular measure   not  agreeing  with  his  opinion.     I  may  think   the 
conduct  of  a  man  dangerovis  ;  I  may  speak  of  the  consequences  of 
his  conduct  as  I  think.     But  does  it  follow   that  such  a  man  passing 
a  verdict   upon  his   oath    upon  the  examination  of   witnesses  to  a 
particular  fact,  is  therefore  to  be  unfavourable  to  the  person  of  whom 
he  had  entertained  the  opinion  ?  Was  there  a   single  allusion  to  the 
matter  in  question?  It  is  not  a  cause  of  challenge  to  a  man,  that  he 
has  delivered  an  opinion  upon  the  very  subject;  he  must  have  done 
it  through  malice  and  with  an  improper  view ;  and  the  reason  is,  that 
an  honest  man,   may  deliver  an  opinion  upon   what   appears  before 
him,  concerning  which,  when   examined,  he  may  have  a  different 
opinion  ;  even  upon  the  subject  itself,  it  must  be  clearly  shewn,  that 
the  opinion  was  unfair  or  malicious,  2  Salk.  589-*     But  see  what  is 
desired ;  suppose  it  a  cause  of  challenge,  suppose  it  a  principal  cause 
of  challenge,  then,  my  lords,  I  submit,  that  the  verdict  should  not  be 
set  aside  ;  because,  by  law   the  challenge  must  be  taken,  if  to  the 
array,  before  a  juror  is  sworn  ;  if  to  the  polls,  it  must  be  as  each  man 
comes  to  the  book. — So  very  strong  is  it,  that  after  one  juror  is  sworn, 
the  law  will  not  allow  a  challenge  to  the  array  ;  and  yet  where  would 
be  the  difficulty?  but   such  was  the  simplicity  of  our   ancient  law, 
that  it  would  not  allow  it,  Hob.  235.^     And  now,  my  lords,  after  the 
party  has  taken  all   the  advantages    which  he  could   take,    asking 
questions  he  had  no  right  to  ask,  putting  aside  a  juror  actually  sworn, 
after  having  the  advantage  of  every  thing  which  he  could   desire ; 
you,  my  lords,   and   the  people,   (for  they  are   appealed  to  upon  a 
judicial  trial !)  have  been  told,  that  this  trial  was  carried  on  by  cruel 
and  unjust  means,  and  you  are  desired  to  set  aside  this  verdict,  upon 
matters,  suggested  in  these  atfidavits,   respecting  a  juror,  which  was 
no  cause  of  challenge,  upon  a  supposed  conversation,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  touching  the  Volunteers,  probably  over  a  bowl  of  punch,  and  not 
about  the  subject  of  any  trial. 

I  now  come  to  the  third  objection,  that  the  sheriff  has  been  partial : 
Mr.  Rowan  swears,  as  to  his  belief,  that  the  sheriff  has  an  otfice  under 
government — is  a  militia  officer,  and  conductor  of  a  paper,  commonly 

*  There  is  no  such  doctrine  in  Salkeld.  It  is  presumed  the  reference  is  to 
Hawkins.  "  It  hath  been  allowed  a  good  cause  of  challenge,  on  the  part  of  the 
prisoner,  that  the  juror  hath  a  claim  to  the  forfeiture,  which  shall  be  caused  by 
the  party's  attainder,  or  conviction  ;  or  that  he  hath  declared  his  opinion  beforehand 
that  the  party  is  guilty,  or  will  be  hanged,  or  the  like.  Yet  it  hath  been  adjudged, 
that  if  it  shall  appear  that  the  juror  made  such  declaration  from  his  knowledge 
of  the  cause,  and  not  of  any  ill  will  to  the  party,  it  is  no  cause  of  challenge;"  2 
Hawkins  378,  8th  Ed.  ;  but  see  Cooke's  case  13  Howell's  St.  Tr.  p.  338. 

f  Vicars  v.  Langham,  Hobart's  R.  235,  5th  Ed.  The  words  in  the  report  are, 
*'  And  note,  that  in  this  case  there  were  none  sworn  before  the  challenge,  but  only 
iinpannelled.  But  if  the  principal  pannel  do  once  appear  full,  then  the  challenge 
must  be  taken  to  the  pannel  before  any  be  sworn,  or  else  it  conies  too  late." 


ARCHIBALT)  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  147 

called  a  government  newspaper — that  the  shei*iff  is  prejudiced  against 
him — and  that  the  pannel  was  returned  by  Mr.  Giffard,  or  his  sub- 
sheriiF,  and  that  he  laboui-ed  to  return  a  pannel  which  he  either  knew 
or  believed  to  be  prejudiced  against  Mr.  Rowan.  If  the  affidavit  has 
any  meaning,  it  means  this,  that  there  lay  a  challenge  to  the  array, 
for  that  the  sheriflf  was  partial,  and  procured  a  jury  for  the  purpose 
of  convicting  Mr.  Rowan.  He  is  not  pleased  to  inform  your  lordships 
when  he  heard  of  these  facts,  or  when  he  first  formed  his  belief. 
This  was  not  omitted  from  want  of  recollection  in  himself,  or  those 
who  advised  him  ;  because,  in  his  affidavit  touching  the  evidence,  he 
takes  care  to  tell  you,  that  he  did  not  hear  of  it  till  after  the  trial ; 
so  that  it  does  not  appear  that  Mr.  Rowan  was  not  apprized  of  this 
when  the  jury  came  into  the  box — when  the  venire  issued — when  the 
trial  at  bar  was  moved  for  in  Michaelmas  term,  or  when  he  put  in 
his  plea — look  at  the  situation  in  which  your  lordships  stand — look 
at  what  precedent  you  are  called  upon  to  make — ^you  let  the  man  take 
his  trial,  with  an  objection  in  his  possession  that  may  set  aside  all  the 
proceedings,  and  he  declines  to  make  it — the  party  is  to  be  tried  by  a 
jury — he  submits  to  the  jury,  for  he  made  no  challenge,  he  is  found 
guilty,  and  now  he  says,  I  had  a  cause  of  challenge,  I  took  my  chance — ■ 
send  me  to  another  trial,  that  I  may  make  it.  My  lords,  I  would 
almost  ask,  is  this  decent  ?  the  law  protects  every  man,  gives  him  a 
right  to  have  a  fair  jury,  the  law  points  him  out  the  way,  and  he  is 
not  to  overbound  those  limits,  to  do  that  which  has  not  been  done 
since  the  days  of  our  Saxon  ancestors.  He  knew  these  facts,  that 
Giffiird  was  sheriflf,  that  he  was  an  officer  in  the  militia,  that  he  had 
a  place  in  the  revenue — what  had  he  to  do  ?  Mr.  Rowan  had  able 
counsel,  men  of  the  first  talents  and  information — his  remedy  was 
easy  and  without  delay  or  expense — why  not  come  in  here  and  sug- 
gest the  facts  ?  If  he  had,  the  venire  would  have  gone  to  the  other 
sheriff,  and  Giffard  could  not  have  meddled.  But  mayhap  the  other 
sheriff  is  partial — suggest  that  then,  and  if  the  objection  be  well 
founded,  the  venire  will  go  to  the  coroner.  If  the  objection  would 
not  be  sufficient  for  that  purpose,  it  cannot  be  sufficient  for  this  pur- 
pose ;  but  it  is  said  he  was  not  aware  of  this  suggestion  ;  I  will  not 
impute  it  to  the  counsel — Mr.  Rowan  must  have  been  aware  of  it 
when  they  came  into  the  box — why  not  challenge  the  array  ?  He 
forgot  to  do  that,  till  one  of  them  was  sworn  ;  then  why  not  challenge 
for  favour  ?  Where  are  these  men  who  have  told  him  these  stories  ? 
Why  do  they  not  make  affidavits  ?  Why  does  he  take  a  chance  for 
a  verdict,  knowing  these  facts  ?  Having  taken  his  chance,  he  now 
calls  upon  you  to  set  aside  the  verdict  upon  that.  Make  that  example, 
my  lords,  and  you  overset  the  criminal  law,  that  which  is  the  guar- 
dian of  our  lives  and  properties,  and  you  make  it  depend  upon  the 
art,  design,  and  knavish  conduct  of  those  concerned.  The  objection 
is  founded  upon  the  conduct  of  the  sheriff;  that  conduct  was  known 
previous  to  the  trial,  therefore  I  rely  upon  it,  that  this  verdict  ought 
not  to  be  set  aside  ;  and  if  it  be,  it  will  be  an  example  big  with  dan- 
gerous consequences.  It  has  been  said,  Mr.  Giffard  did  not  answer 
the  affidavits,  and  therefore  they  must  be  taken  as  true — Mr.  Rowan 
believes  what  he  has  sworn,  but  are  the  facts  true  still  ?  No.  He 
mijjlit  have   produced   persons  to  prove  the   facts — Giffard  has  not 


148  TRIAL  OF 

answered  the  affidavits,  it  was  offered  to  let  him  answer ;  but  you 
must  put  that  out  of  the  case  ;  whether  he  be  ready  to  answer  them 
or  not,  I  do  not  know,  and  I  do  not  care.  I  at  once  said  to  the 
gentlemen,  I  meet  you  on  your  own  ground — Giffard  could  not  make 
an  affidavit  in  this  case,  he  may  make  one  extra-judicially  if  he 
pleases. 

I  come  now  to  the  other  objection,  which  they  had  no  right  to 
make — the  misdirection  of  the  judge:  the  eloquent  gentleman  applied 
it  as  pleasantly  as  any  serious  subject  could  be  applied ;  the  whole 
was  sophistry  or  joke.  He  imputed  this  to  one  of  your  lordships, 
that  the  jury  were  to  find  against  Mr.  Rowan,  because  he  did  not 
shew  that  the  facts  did  not  happen,  where  so  many  persons  were 
present.  Your  lordships  best  know  what  the  observations  you  made 
were.  The  trial  stood  thus,  witnesses  wei-e  examined  for  the  prose- 
cution— witnesses  were  examined  to  discredit  these,  which  is  always 
matter  for  the  jury :  there  was  clear  evidence  of  the  guilt  of  Mr. 
Rowan,  if  they  believed  the  witnesses  ;  but  witnesses  were  produced 
to  discredit  the  first.  The  jury  were  to  consider  how  far  the  opinions 
of  those  persons  were  to  have  weight,  and  every  circumstance  was  to 
be  taken  into  consideration.  It  was  taken  as  true,  that  there  was  a 
meeting,  that  Mr.  Rowan  was  present  at  the  meeting,  and  the  ques- 
tion was,  whether  he  published  such  a  paper  there  ?  If  there  was 
such  a  meeting,  and  he  was  there,  it  must  occur  to  every  person,  that 
if  he  wanted  to  discredit  the  witnesses,  it  could  be  best  done  by 
shewing  that  he  did  not  publish  the  paper.  It  was  a  judicial  inquiry 
into  a  question  of  fact,  and  it  was  a  proper  observation,  suggesting 
itself  to  the  mind  of  any  honest  judge,  to  say,  you  are  to  consider, 
here  there  was  a  meeting  ;  if  you  believe  that  there  is  not  a  witness 
produced  from  this  number  to  contradict  the  evidence,  it  was  a 
natural  observation,  but  no  direction  was  given  to  the  jury  ;  your 
lordships  gave  your  opinion  upon  the  libel,  whether  right  or  wrong  is 
not  the  enquiry  :  there  are  few  reasonable  men,  who  have  read  or 
shall  hereafter  read  that  paper,  who  will  not  feel  that  it  was  the  most 
dangerous  and  seditious  libel,  pviblished  at  the  time  it  was,  that  ever 
came  from  the  press.  But  your  lordships  told  the  jury,  that  notwith- 
standing what  you  said,  they  were  to  form  their  own  opinion ;  I  do 
not  rely  upon  the  want  of  notice,  but  upon  a  full  and  fair  discussion, 
let  this  case  be  decided  as  the  law  admits.  One  topic  more  remains, 
my  lords,  I  should  never  touch  upon  it,  if  so  much  had  not  been  said 
about  it,  more  than  ever  was  known  to  pass  from  the  lips  of  counsel 
— I  speak  of  Mr.  Rowan's  own  affidavit,  and  the  credit  to  be  given 
to  it.  I  am  not  to  speak  of  the  credit  given  to  any  man,  it  is  not  my 
province  ;  but  it  is  the  first  time  I  ever  heard,  that  a  man  swearing 
to  his  own  innocence  should  affect  the  determination  of  a  judge  in  a 
criminal  case.  A  great  press  was  made  upon  this  :  we  were  told — I 
know  not  what — and  what  if  I  did  know,  I  choose  not  to  repeat — of 
the  consequences  that  might  attend  a  belief  of  this  gentleman's  affi- 
davit :  I  am  not  apprehensive  of  any  consequences  from  it :  the  public 
mind  is  tranquil  upon  subjects,  and  whatever  tumult  or  noise  is  made 
by  the  little  mob  behind  me,  or  any  where  else,  for  a  few  hours,  or  a 
few  days,  the  leai*ned  and  the  good  will  see,  that  the  case  has  been 
determined  upon  the   known  rules  of  law,  and  that  justice  has  been 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  HO  WAN.  149 

administered  to  this  gentleman,  as  to  every  other.  But  the  fact  is  not 
as  it  has  been  insinuated ;  he  has  not  sworn  to  his  innocence ;  he  has 
not  sworn,  that  if  the  verdict  be  set  aside,  he  has  a  good  cause  of 
defence.  He  swears  generally,  that  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  is 
not  true ;  not  a  syllable  Avith  regard  to  his  innocence.  I  desire  to 
infer  nothing  from  this  ;  but  I  desire  that  nothing  may  be  inferred 
from  what  he  has  sworn,  to  what  he  has  not  SAVorn.  It  is  said,  he  is 
a  gentleman  of  great  worth,  I  know  him  not,  I  dare  say  he  is ;  if  he 
be,  it  may  furnish  some  deduction,  that  there  was  something  which  he 
could  not  deny ;  I  desire  not  to  press  it  furtliei",  that  affidavit  can  have 
no  weight  in  the  disposal  of  this  case,  and  I  feel  sensible,  that  the 
time  will  come,  Avhen  it  can  have  no  eifect  upon  the  people.  But  be 
their  opinion  what  it  may,  be  the  consequence  w^hat  it  may — Fiat 
justitia — ruat  ccelum. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General,  same  side My  lords,  I  was  in  hopes  it 

wo\ild  not  be  necessary  for  me  to  address  you.  This  is  the  sixth  day 
that  this  subject  has  taken  up  the  time  of  the  court,  it  is  impossible 
not  to  feel  it  as  trespassing  much  upon  your  time.  The  subject  has 
been  magnified  into  consequences  not  necessarily  belonging  to  it ; 
you  have  heard  this  case  with  dignified  patience  and  \\\i\\  dignified 
attention,  with  an  exemplary  degree  of  temper,  not  disturbed  by  the 
efforts  of  unbridled  eloquence.  It  is  impossible  to  escape  your  lord- 
ship's wisdom,  that  by  the  late  act  of  parliament  there  was  a  latitude 
given  to  the  jury  upon  the  subject  of  libels.  The  learned  gentleman 
who  laboured  this  argument,  went  into  an  investigation  of  the  facts 
very  briefly.  He,  in  an  argument  of  three  hours  or  more,  a  few  days 
ago,  scarcely  took  up  ten  minutes  in  the  investigation  of  facts  ;  he 
has  fastened  the  fact  of  publication  "  round  the  neck  of  his  client ;" 
that  publication  was  a  calling  to  arms  to  introduce  a  reform  in  the 
representation  of  the  people,  and  an  emancipation  of  the  Catholics. 
He  said  the  present  publication  was  the  "  honest  effusion  of  a  manly 
mind."  Instead  of  disclaiming  the  publication,  the  learned  counsel 
has  made  a  "  wreath  of  it  to  decorate  the  brows  of  his  client."  This 
motion  is  to  set  aside  the  verdict.  In  3  Wils.  45.  Swaine  v.  Hall 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Wilmot  said  "  there  Avas  a  contrariety  of  evidence 
on  both  sides ;  and  although  I  am  still  of  opinion  that  the  weight 
of  evidence  was  Avith  the  plaintiff,  yet  I  disclaim  any  poAver  to 
control  this  verdict  of  the  jury,  Avho  are  the  legal  constitutional 
j  udges  of  the  fact." 

My  lords,  I  forbear  to  folloAV  the  learned  counsel  for  the  defendant 
through  the  vast  variety  of  matter  Avhich  he  has  introduced  upon  the 
occasion  of  the  trial,  with  a  degree  of  boldness  and  freedom,  that  Avas 
very  unusual  to  my  ear,  scarcely  admissible  in  any  assembly,  the 
most  popular  knoAvn  to  the  country.  There  was  another  circum- 
stance, I  beg  to  put  to  your  lordship's  mind  ;  in  the  progress  of  the 
cross-examinations,  it  appeared,  that  at  the  meeting  in  Cope-street, 
there  was  a  new  species  of  men,  under  the  cloak  of  old  Volunteers, 
with  neAv  devices  and  new  badges  of  sedition,  as  a  harp  divested  oi 
the  royal  croAvn.*     It  was  most  industriously  jjointed  out,    that  they 

*  No  such  fact  appeared,  or  was  asserted,  on  the  direct  or  cross-examination 
of  anv  of  the  witnesses. 


150  TRIAL  OF 

were  the  antient  Volunteers.  The  witness  said  the  men  were 
dressed  in  scarlet  turned  up  with  blue,  yellow,  &c.  Here  was  a 
declaration  of  the  fact,  that  there  was  a  meeting :  give  me  leave  to 
ask,  was  that  fact  capable  of  disproof,  namely,  was  there  a  meeting 
of  Volunteers  in  Cope-street  ?  Did  that  fact  rest  on  the  testimony 
of  an  incredible  witness  ?  The  fact  happened  thirteen  months  ago  ; 
there  was  full  opportunity  to  collect  materials,  to  disprove  what  was 
sworn  to,  with  regard  to  that  meeting.  Was  it  not  competent  to  Mr. 
Rowan  to  discredit  the  man  if  his  evidence  was  untrue,  to  prove 
there  was  not  a  meeting  on  the  16th  December,  1792,  of  Volunteers 
at  Pardon's  ?  That  no  man  appeared  there  with  side  arms,  or  did 
wear  those  badges  of  sedition.  Was  it  capable  of  disproof?  Not 
one  of  the  150  persons  have  been  brought  to  disprove  the  evidence  of 
Lyster,  that  there  was  such  a  meeting.  There  is  not  an  affidavit  to 
prove  the  innocency  of  the  party  accused,  that  he  did  not  publish  the 
paper  in  question.  My  lords,  is  this  a  case  in  which  your  lordships 
can  say,  you  are  dissatisfied  with  the  verdict  ?  Or  that  case  in  which 
the  court  can  say,  that  justice  has  not  been  done?  It  was  said,  that 
it  will  do  no  harm  to  send  this  case  back  to  another  investigation  ; 
but,  my  lords,  can  you  send  it  back,  without  deciding  upon  the  credit 
of  witnesses,  vv^hicli  it  is  the  province  of  the  jury  to  decide  upon  ? 
Give  me  leave  to  observe,  upon  the  concurring  evidence  of  Morton  ; 
he  does  not  go  to  the  collateral  part  of  the  case,  he  goes  to  the  very 
principal  part,  namely,  the  publication  of  the  paper  ;  he  was  able  to 
repeat  part  of  the  paper  (which  he  said  was  read)  by  memory,  viz., 
"  Citizen  soldiers,  to  arms." 

This  verdict  is  sought  to  be  set  aside,  in  order  to  give  the  defendant 
an  opportunity  of  being  able  to  find  more  witnesses  against  the  credit 
of  Lyster,  when  he  has  already  ransacked  the  province  of  Connaught 
for  evidence. 

If  you  do  set  aside  the  verdict,  upon  the  ground  of  these  affidavits, 
you  do  not  give  Lyster  an  opportunity  of  vindicating  his  character, 
which  has  been  depreciated  on  the  present  occasion. 

This  verdict  is  sought  to  be  set  aside  upon  the  ground  of  the  chal- 
lenge to  the  jury.  I  am  bold  to  say,  there  is  not  a  single  authority  in 
the  law  books  to  shew  where  a  verdict  has  been  set  aside  for  matter 
of  challenge.  If  the  juror  was  competent  at  the  time,  you  will  not 
set  the  verdict  aside  for  challenge  to  the  jury.  There  are  authorities 
which  do  say,  that  a  challenge  for  competency  is  not  a  ground  for 
granting  a  new  trial.* 

As  to  the  objection,  that  the  sheriff  was  partial ;  a  sheriff  is  the 
returning  officer  intrusted  by  law  ;  if  Mr.  Rowan  had  suggested  the 
objection  at  the  time,  before  any  of  the  jurors  was  sworn,  no  doubt 
your  lordships  would  have  postponed  the  trial,  or  issued  a  venire 
to  the  coroner ;  on  this  ground  therefore  this  motion  cannot  be 
supported. 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  liberty  of  the  press  ;  the  best  mode  to 
preserve  the  freedom  of  the  press,  is  to  curb  its  licentiousness.  The 
most  popular  character  that  ever  existed  in  England,  Lord  Camden, 
on  the  decision  of  a  case  mentioned  in  the  11th  volume  of  the  State 

*  Complete  Jui^man,  p.  262,  et  seq ;  chapter  ou  new  trials. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  UOWAN.  151 

Trials  1 1 22,  gave  his  opinion  on  the  dangerous  consequences  of  libels  ; 
he  said,  that  they  excited  discontent  against  the  government,  and 
tended  to  destroy  the  liberty  of  the  press  by  its  licentiousness, 
and  said  tliat  the  worst  government  was  better  than  no  government 
at  all.* 

It  has  been  a  fortunate  event  for  this  country,  that  this  matter  has 
been  brought  to  trial.  If,  in  consequence  of  the  summons  to  arms  by 
the  publication  of  this  paper,  the  people  in  arms  had  by  force  overawed 
the  government ;  if  the  people  in  arms  had  proceeded  to  act,  the 
gentleman  who  now  stands  at  the  bar  for  publishing  a  libel  and  charged 
to  be  a  misdemeanour,  would  be  accused  of  high  treason  against  the 
state  ;  if  there  had  been  one  act  of  foi'ce  committed,  by  the  clamorous 
rabble,  who  shouted  yesterday  at  your  bar,  in  consequence  of  this 
summons  to  arms,  it  would  fasten  the  crime  of  high  treason  upon  this 
gentleman.  It  has  been  a  most  fortunate  circumstance,  that  a  pro- 
clamation did  issue,  it  quelled  this  paper  trumpet  of  sedition.  The 
gentleman  at  the  bar,  in  every  other  department  of  life,  is  an  honour- 
able, a  good,  and  a  virtuous  citizen,  the  friend  of  his  country  ;  but  he 
is  a  mistaken  zealot  in  point  of  politics  ;  a  mad  philanthropist. 

The  new  scheme  of  searching  for  a  Utopia,  a  nation  perfect  in 
every  respect,  has  driven  millions  to  their  graves ;  in  that  country 
which  has,  in  the  language  of  the  paper  in  question,  got  the  start  of 
us. 

I  do  rejoice  that  this  trial  was  had,  for  it  has  saved  that  individual 
character,  of  whom  most  men  speak  good  things,  and  I  am  one  of 
those,  who  have  the  honour  of  knowing  him  ;  but  to  let  him  go  on 
uncontrolled,  might  be  dangerous  to  himself,  he  might  pull  down  the 
building  upon  himself — he  lives  to  look  at  the  image  of  his  king  before 
him.  He  has  had  the  most  patient  trial  I  ever  knew  in  the  annals  of 
this  country. 

Mr.  Frankland,  same  side. — Every  observation,  every  case,  and 
every  principle  of  law,  has  been  so  very  fully  stated  by  Mr.  Attorney- 
General,  that  I  feel  it  necessary  to  compress  what  I  have  to  say,  into 
the  narrowest  compass  ;  and  after  so  much  has  been  said  by  the 
learned  gentleman  who  spoke  last,  I  shall  be  very  brief.  The  avowed 
personal  regards  for  the  gentleman  at  the  bar,  which  the  learned 
counsel  have  for  him,  have  called  forth  the  most  splendid  display  of 
talents  that  has  been  known ;  but  I  consider  this  case  merely  as  a  case 
between  the  king  and  a  common  traverser ;  if  this  motive  had  not 
called  forth  the  exertion  of  the  eminent  abilities  of  the  learned 
counsel,  this  motion  ought  to  have  been  decided  in  ten  minvites. 

Mr.  Rowan  now  applies  to  the  discretion  of  this  court  upon  many 
affidavits,  in  none  of  which  he  has  stated  one  substantive  case  to  make 
upon  a  new  trial.     He  has  made  two  affidavits  himself,  in  neither  of 

*  The  words  of  Lord  Camden  (in  the  case  of  Entick  v.  Carrington,  19  Howell 
S.  T.  1074,)  are — "  All  civilized  governments  have  punished  calumny  with  severity 
and  with  reason ;  for  these  compositions  debauch  the  manners  of  the  people;  they 
excite  a  spirit  of  inobedience,  and  enervate  the  authority  of  government ;  they 
provoke  and  excite  the  passions  of  the  people  against  their  rulers,  and  the  rulers 
oftentimes  against  the  people.  When  licentiousness  is  tolerated,  liberty  is  in  the 
utmost  danger  ;  because  tyranny,  bad  as  it  is,  is  better  than  anarchy  ;  and  the 
worst  of  governments  is  better  than  no  government  at  all." 


152  TKIAL  OF 

which  he  has  stated,  that  he  is  not  guihy  of  the  crime  charged.  Upon 
these  affidavits  have  you  ground  to  say,  first,  that  this  verdict  is  con- 
trary to  justice  ?  •  That  the  verdict  was  found  upon  false  evidence,  not 
deserving  any  credit  ? 

1  will  admit  that  there  is  an  analogy  in  principle,  between  criminal 
and  civil  cases ;  but  I  Avill  be  bold  to  say,  there  is  not  a  case  in  the 
books,  considering  the  cii'cnmstances  that  arise  in  this  case,  where  an 
application  has  been  made  for  a  new  trial.  There  is  no  case  where  a 
new  trial  has  been  granted,  merely  because  the  witness  produced  had 
spoken  falsely.  However,  supposing  it  was  a  ground  for  an  application, 
then  look  to  the  circumstances  attending  this  case.  You  cannot  forget 
that  the  traverser  and  his  counsel  came  prepared  to  impeach  the 
character  of  Lyster.  The  jury,  it  must  be  presumed,  have  weighed  the 
evidence  ;  they  found  a  verdict.  Do  you  now  send  back  this  case  to 
a  new  trial,  because  the  person  who  has  sworn  that  Mr.  Rowan  did 
publish  the  paper  at  such  a  meeting  in  Cope-street,  has  sworn  false  ? 

In  cases  of  this  kind,  your  lordships  will  look  with  eagles'  eyes. 
The  court  will  never  set  aside  a  verdict  on  the  gi-ound,  that  a  witness 
produced  has  sworn  false.  This  Lyster  should  be  indicted  for  perjury, 
and  then  these  two  men  may  bring  forward  the  circumstances ;  but  it 
Avould  be  absui'd  to  set  aside  the  verdict  against  Mr.  Rowan  upon  the 
affidavits  of  those  two  persons,  who  have  sworn  that  Lyster  perjured 
himself  on  some  other  particular  transactions.  In  every  application 
for  a  new  trial,  upon  the  allegation  that  evidence  has  been  discovered 
which  was  not  known  antecedent  to  the  trial  ;  an  affidavit  of  not 
only  the  party  himself,  but  also  of  his  attorney  is  required.  Now, 
give  me  leave  to  ask,  why  these  grounds  are  stated  upon  this  affidavit 
of  Mr.  Rowan  himself,  and  not  of  Mr.  Dowling,  his  attorney  upon 
record  ?  If  you  should  grant  a  new  trial,  when  this  necessary  ingre- 
dient, the  affidavit  of  his  attorney,  has  not  been  complied  with,  would 
not  every  attorney  in  the  hall,  the  instant  he  was  employed  to  defend 
a  client  charging  him  with  a  misdemeanor,  say  to  him,  do  you  listen 
to  no  one ;  do  not  enquire  about  your  defence  ;  I  shall  shut  the 
mouth  of  every  man  to  you  upon  the  subject,  and  go  to  trial,  and  give 
yourself  a  chance  of  a  verdict  of  acquittal ;  if  you  should  hapj)en  to 
be  acquitted,  it  is  well,  but  if  the  verdict  should  be  against  you, 
then  apply  to  the  court  to  set  aside  that  verdict,  upon  the  ground  of 
facts  which  I  now  tell  you  of,  and  which  you  can  swear  has  come  to 
your  knowledge  since  the  trial.  Let  it  not  be  understood  that  I  mean 
to  apply  that  there  was  such  a  scheme  between  the  present  parties. 
No ;  but  I  am  adducing  a  case  to  the  court.  I  would  not  have  it 
imagined  that  I  impute  any  thing  in  the  case  I  have  supposed,  to  the 
present  defendant ;  he  is  a  man  of  honour ;  but  courts  will  decide 
upon  established  general  rules,  applicable  to  the  case  of  every  man. 

The  notice  in  this  case  is  very  generally  shaped  :  Is  he  to  be  granted 
a  new  trial  upon  the  ground  stated  by  these  affidavits  ?  Nothing  can 
be  more  clear  than  that  the  defendant  had  a  knowledge  that  Lyster 
was  to  be  produced  against  him.  Lyster  was  examined,  and  Avit- 
nesses  were  examined  to  discredit  him.  AVill  it  be  contended  that 
there  was  not  evidence  for  the  jury  to  weigh  and  deliberate  upon? 
The  verdict  of  the  jury  shews  they  did  decide  on  Lystei''s  evidence. 
To  say,  therefore,  that  this  is  a  verdict  against  evidence,  is  utterly 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  153 

untenable  :  it  is  not  a  verdict  against  evidence ;  it  conies  then  to  this, 
is  it  a  vei'dict  against  the  weight  of  evidence ;  will  your  lordships 
establish  such  a  rule  as  this  ?  You  never  will  interpose  Avith  the 
province  of  the  jury ;  the  court  will  not  say  it  was  a  verdict  against 
the  weight  of  evidence,  the  whole  of  the  evidence  did  go  to  the  jury, 
and  upon  that  evidence  the  jury  were  competent  to  decide. 

As  to  the  second  ground,  that  some  of  the  jury  were  prejudiced 
against,  and  at  enmity  with  the  traverser :  Upon  that  ground  I  was 
told,  that  Mr.  Curran  laid  down  the  position  from  a  case  in  5th  Bacon 
which  referred  to  7tli  Modern,  57.  where  a  challenge  for  favour  is  a 
good  cause  of  setting  aside  a  verdict.  Supposing  the  case  to  be  in 
])oint,  yet  in  the  present  case  the  facts  set  forth  in  these  affidavits 
would  not  constitute  a  good  challenge  to  the  poll,  or  to  the  array. 
This  appears  from  the  triors  oath  in  Co.  Lit.  to  determine  whether 
you  are  bound  to  look  to  the  words  of  this  affidavit ;  supposing,  but 
not  admitting,  that  the  juryman  did  use  the  words  mentioned  six 
months  before  the  trial ;  before  he  was  sworn,  it  was  not  a  good  cause 
of  challenge  to  the  poll.  Suppose  that  six  months  ago,  the  words 
used  by  a  juryman  were  these,  "  Mr.  Rowan  has  committed  murder," 
when  the  juror  came  to  be  sworn  on  the  trial  four  days  ago,  on  a 
charge  for  a  misdemeanor,  the  juror  might  say,  my  mind  is  now  dis- 
abused, I  was  under  an  error  when  I  did  speak  the  words  mentioned, 
but  I  never  made  any  declarations  upon  the  matter  in  issue.  The 
trior's  oath  is,  "to  enquire  whether  the  juror  stands  indiffiirent  as  to 
the  matter  in  issue  between  the  parties."  Give  me  leave  to  say,  that 
by  the  principles  of  law,  the  court  will  never  send  a  cause  back  to  be 
tried  on  account  of  the  words  spoken,  as  charged  in  this  affidavit, 
unless  the  words  spoken  were  such  as  in  law  would  be  a  good  legal 
challenge  to  favour. 

The  objection  made  to  the  sheriff,  as  returning  officer,  is  for  parti- 
ality. I  was  astonished  when  the  traverser  and  the  counsel  came 
forward  on  a  motion  to  set  aside  the  verdict,  because  the  defendant 
knew  a  fact,  without  stating  when  he  came  to  the  knowledge  of  that 
fact,  which  would  be  considered  as  a  good  legal  challenge  to  the  array. 
Is  it  because  a  man  is  proprietor  of  a  ncAvspaper,  has  a  place  in  the 
revenue,  and  holds  a  commission  in  the  militia,  and  he  returns  the 
jury — is  that  a  good  cause  of  challenge  to  the  array  ?  But,  if  it  has 
any  weight,  when  did  Mr.  Rowan  came  to  the  knowledge  of  these 
facts  ?  Mr.  Rowan  could  have  made  his  objections  before  the  trial ; 
he  had  a  knowledge  of  these  facts,  he  knew  that  Mr.  Gitfard  was 
proprietor  of  a  newspaper  called  a  government  newspaper,  had  a  place 
in  the  reveniie,  and  held  a  commission  in  the  militia.  He  could  then, 
by  an  affidavit,  have  applied  to  the  court,  stating  that  he  could  not 
have  a  fair  trial.  Your  lordships  would  no  doubt  have  postponed  the 
trial.  I  do  not  find  in  the  notice,  any  mention  made  relative  to  any 
misdirection  in  the  judge.  The  court  was  unanimous,  the  whole 
matter  was  left  to  the  jury,  who  were  told  that  they  were  to  judge  of 
the  credit  they  would  give  to  the  witness.  Mr.  Rowan's  being  at  the 
meeting  was  a  fact  admitted  ;  for  on  the  cross-examination  of  Lyster 
it  was  pressed  by  the  counsel,  that  the  meeting  consisted  of  the  old 
Volunteers,  that  their  uniform  was  scarlet  with  different  coloured 
facings.     The  fact  of  Mr.  Rowan  being  at  that  meeting  was  proved 


154  TRIAL   OF 

by  Morton,  and  he  said  he  heard  part  of  the  paper  read,  as  "  Citizen 
Soldiers,  to  arms !"  There  were  near  200  persons  at  that  meeting  ; 
that  was  the  fact  capable  of  disproof;  if  so,  there  has  not  been  a 
single  person  produced  to  disprove  it ;  that  is  as  a  volume  of  evidence 
of  the  truth.  I  must  say  I  rejoice  at  hearing  this  voluntary  eulogium 
on  his  private  character.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  applying  to 
your  discretion  to  set  aside  the  verdict,  which  twelve  men  on  their 
oaths  have  found.  This  motion  ought  not  to  have  taken  up  ten 
minutes  of  your  lordships  time.  I  think  there  is  no  ground  to  set 
aside  the  verdict. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant,  same  side. — My  lords,  unless  your  lordships 
please,  I  have  no  desire  to  speak  on  this  motion. 

Court. — As  you  please — use  your  own  discretion. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant. — My  lords,  I  am  counsel  on  the  part 
of  the  Crown.  This  case  is  totally  diiferent  from  any  case  in  the 
books.  It  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  the  detail  of  the  evidence  on 
which  your  lordships  have,  in  fact,  given  your  opinion.  This  is  a 
motion  made  to  set  aside  the  verdict,  where  no  evidence  on  the  part  of 
the  defendant  was  adduced,  but  merely  to  discredit  the  witness 
produced  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution.  They  ask  you  to  step  out  of 
your  proper  sphere,  to  judge  of  the  credit  of  the  witnesses,  which  is 
the  province  of  the  jury  only  to  do.  Where  evidence  has  been 
adduced  on  both  sides,  the  court  may  give  their  opinion  to  the  jury, 
whex'e  the  weight  of  evidence  lies,  but  the  jury  are  to  determine  as  to 
the  evidence  and  the  credit  they  will  give  it.  I  should  apprehend 
there  would  be  a  clamour  against  the  court,  if  your  lordships  were  to 
step  off  the  bench  into  the  jury  box  ;  because  the  court  has  nothing 
to  say  to  the  credit  of  the  witnesses.  Were  you  to  set  aside  this  verdict,  it 
would  be  taking  away  the  opinion  which  twelve  men  on  their  oaths 
have  formed,  and  which  opinion  the  jury  were  bound  by  the  law 
of  the  land  to  entertain.  Therefore,  on  the  ground  of  the  verdict 
being  contrary  to  evidence,  or  to  the  weight  of  evidence,  in  a 
case  where  there  was  no  evidence  on  one  side,  there  is  not  a  man  of 
common  understanding  that  cannot  say  there  is  no  ground  for 
this  motion. 

It  is  said,  that  a  juror  was  prejudiced  against  the  traverser.  If 
there  was  any  contrariety  of  evidence,  if  there  was  any  point  on 
which  that  prejudice  was  to  operate,  if  there  was  any  scruple  of 
evidence  on  one  side,  and  prejudice  was  to  give  way  to  that  scruple, 
there  might  be  some  weight  in  the  objection,  but  here  there  was 
nothing  to  exercise  his  prejudice  upon  ;  there  is  therefore  nothing  in 
this  objection  as  a  ground  to  set  the  verdict  aside.  If  five  hundred 
witnesses  had  come  forward  to  say,  that  Lyster  is  not  to  be  believed 
upon  his  oath,  it  is  not  for  the  court  to  determine,  but  solely  for 
the  consideration  of  the  jurors.  The  jury  must  determine  whether 
Lyster  was  deserving  of  ci-edit,  or  not  ;  even  if  this  objection 
had  more  weight  than  it  has,  the  door  is  shut  upon  it,  as  against 
the  traverser.  The  whole  of  the  case  went  to  the  jury,  and  by  their 
verdict  it  appears,  that  they  did  give  credit  to  what  was  said  by 
Lyster.  An  issue  was  directed  to  try  the  validity  of  a  deed, 
and  a  witness  swore  to  the  execution  of  the  bond  at  a  certain  time 
and  place.      Before  the  trial,  the  defendant  in  the  action  gave  notice, 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  155 

he  would  impeach  the  credit  of  the  witness,  because  he  was  abroad  at 
the  time  of  the  alleged  attestation  to  the  deed.  The  case  went 
to  trial ;  there  was  a  verdict  on  the  evidence  intended  to  be  impeached. 
The  party  applied  for  a  new  trial,  on  affidavit,  that  the  person  was  at 
a  different  place  when  the  deed  was  alleged  to  have  been  executed. 
The  court  said  they  would  not  entertain  the  motion ;  he  ought  to  have 
come  prepared  at  the  trial ;  we  will  not  now  give  you  an  opportunity 
of  bringing  on  your  witnesses  at  a  new  trial.* 

With  respect  to  the  incredibility  of  Lyster,  three  witnesses  were 
examined,  and  now  your  lordships  are  called  upon  to  have  an 
examination  of  Clarke,  who  appears  to  have  been  the  hair-dresser  of 
Lyster,  and  to  let  in  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Coultry  that  Lyster  does  not 
deserve  credit,  after  the  examination  of  three  witnesses  to  that  point 
at  the  trial.  With  respect  to  the  public  principles  and  character  of 
witnesses,  are  they  to  be  again  enquired  into,  after  they  had  gone 
through  the  fiery  ordeal  of  a  cross-examination  ?  The  court  would 
not  permit  it,  after  the  witness  had  gone  from  the  table.  As  to 
the  general  character  of  Lyster,  it  could  not  be  gone  into:  evidence 
did  not  go  to  the  point  that  he  did  deserve  credit  or  not.  An  objection 
is  made  on  account  of  the  declaration  of  the  juror ;  it  was  not  a 
declaration  of  any  opinion  as  to  the  matter  in  issue  between  the 
parties ;  such  declarations  therefore,  could  not  be  the  ground  of  a 
challenge  to  the  juror.     2  Hawkins  589. 

If  there  be  objections  to  a  juror  for  partiality,  it  would  be  a  ground 
of  challenge,  if  accompanied  with  some  particular  instances  of  malice. 
The  law  makes  ill-will  in  a  juror  necessary  to  suppoi't  the  cause  of 
challenge. 

The  charge  against  the  sheriff  is  that  he  did  Lmpannel  persons 
prejudiced,  and  at  enmity  against  the  defendant;  but  no  particular 
prejudice  is  mentioned  in  the  affidavit  :  Mr.  Rowan  does  state 
he  heard,  and  believes,  that  Mr.  Giffard  is  conductor  of  a  newspaper, 
called  a  government  newspaper,  &c.  It  is  not  said  that  Giffard's 
labours  were  successful,  so  as  to  have  a  single  person  on  the  jury  who 
was  unfairly  prejudiced  against  defendant.  Mr.  Rowan  has  not  sworn 
that  the  pannel  was  absolutely  composed  of  persons  pi^ejudiced  against 
him,  and  such  were  chosen  by  the  contrivance  of  Mr.  Giffard  ;  this 
was  in  the  nature  of  a  challenge  to  the  array  made  partially,  through 
the  misconduct  of  the  returning  officer. 

As  to  the  incompetency,  it  is  no  ground  to  set  aside  the  verdict; 
judge  Grose  says,  "  as  to  the  question  of  competency  of  witnesses 
after  trial,  on  a  motion  for  a  new  trial,  we  are  bound  to  reject  such 
testimony  now  ;"  though  a  decision  of  competency  peculiarly  belongs 
to  the  court.   1  Durnford  and  East's  Reports,  TTT.f 

Locke  says,  that  where  a  transaction  is  done  in  open  day,  where 
there   is    a   possibility   of  contradicting    it,    not    contradicting    it   is 


*  Richards  v.  Symes,  2  Atk.  319. 

f  Justice  Grose's  words  are,  "  As  to  the  competency  of  the  witnesses  it  is  not 
contended  that  in  point  of  law  we  are  bound  to  reject  their  testimony  now;" 
which  do  not  appear  to  support  the  portion  laid  down  by  the  Attorney-General ; 
Turner    v.   Pcarte,  I.   T.  R.,  720. 


156  TRIAL  OF 

an  admission    of  the  fact.     The  observations   mentioned   will   have 
a  conclusive  effect  upon  the  mind  of  every  man  that  hears  me.* 
Adjourned  to  Friday,  February  the  7th,  1794. 


Friday,  February  7,  1794. 

This  day  the  coui't  proceeded  to  deliver  their  opinions,  seriatim. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice. — This  is  a  motion  made  on  behalf 
of  the  traverser,  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  founded  on  a  notice 
dated  the  third  of  February  instant ;  and  it  is  to  set  aside  the  verdict 
had  against  him  in  this  cause  :  first,  as  being  contrary  to  the  justice  of 
the  case ;  as  founded  upon  false  evidence,  and  upon  testimony  not 
deserving  of  any  credit.  The  second  ground  is,  that  some  of  the  jury, 
who  found  the  verdict,  were  prejudiced  and  at  enmity  with  the 
traverser,  and  had  declared  that  opinion  before  they  were  sworn  upon 
the  jury.  The  third  gi'ound  is,  because  the  sheriff  who  arrayed  the 
pannel  was  prejudiced  against  the  defendant,  and  did  array  the  pannel 
so  as  to  have  him  tried  by  an  unfair  jury. 

The  motion  is  stated  to  be  founded  upon  six  affidavits,  (of  which  I 
have  copies,  as  have  my  brothers),  stated  to  have  been  filed  in  this 
cause  on  the  tliird  of  February,  stating  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  the 
reasons  to  be  offered.  The  motion  was  called  on  that  day  and  ordered 
to  stand  for  the  next  day,  when  another  ground  of  objection  was  made 
in  the  argument  of  the  motion,  or  suggested  by  counsel,  founded  upon 
an  observation  stated  from  his  memory,  and  unsupported  by  any  oath ; 
which  he  argued  from,  as  if  used  by  me  in  my  charge  to  the  jury  ; 
which  I  shall  take  notice  of  in  its  proper  place.  The  affidavits  to  the 
first  point  in  the  notice,  for  I  have  endeavoured  to  class  them  so  as  to 
make  them  intelligible  to  every  person  ;  the  affidavits,  I  say,  to  the 
credit  of  Lyster,  are  three  : 

1  St.  Clarke,  the  peruke-maker,  who  is  of  opinion  that  Lyster  is  not 
to  be  credited,  as  he  believes,  because  in  a  suit  in  the  Court  of  Con- 
science he,  Lystei',  perjured  himself,  by  denying  any  acquaintance 
with  him.  The  next  is  Coultry,  a  gentleman,  who  is  of  the  same 
opinion,  because,  he  says,  Lyster  perjured  himself  respecting  a  horse, 
and  made  a  false  affidavit  in  the  name  of  his  brother,  whom  he  per- 
sonated. Mr.  Rowan,  in  one  of  his  affidavits,  for  he  has  made  two, 
also  swears  to  the  same  points,  that  he  believes,  if  these  two  persons 
had  attended  at  the  trial  and  been  examined,  this  witness,  Lyster, 
would  have  been  totally  discredited.  That  he  swears  is  his  belief,  and 
I  dare  say,  that  impression  is  made  upon  his  mind.  And  he  adds 
further,  that  from  what  he  and  his  friends  are  daily  hearing,  he  has  no 
doubt  of  proving  fully,  that  Lyster  is  deserving  of  no  credit  on  his 
oath.  These  are  to  the  first  point.  Touching  the  second  point  in  the 
notice,  that  is,  the  partiality  or  prejudice  of  the  jury,  or  some  of  them, 
William  Atkinson,  a  watch-maker,  has  made  an  affidavit,  stating  that 
in  August  last,  on  an  occasion  of  some  illumination,  he  had  a  conver- 

*  It  was  impossible  for  the  Editor  to  have  obtained  any  correct  note  of  the 
aff^unients  of  the  Solicitor-General  or  the  Prime- Serjeant.  Their  arguments 
appear  to  have  been  reported  with  great  inaccuracy,  and,  as  they  at  present  stand, 
are  Terv  loose  and  inconclusive. 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  157 

satioii  with  Mr.  Perrin,  one  of  the  jurors,  respecting  the  Vohmteers ; 
and  that,  Avith  respect  to  the  body  in  general,  he  spoke  with  acrimo- 
nious language  ;  but  particularly  with  respect  to  Hamilton  Rowan ; 
that  he  and  Napper  Tandy  deserved  to  be  hanged,  or  the  country 
would  never  prospei',  or  to  that  effect ;  and  Mr.  Porter  swears  that, 
since  the  commencement  of  this  prosecution,  and  before  the  trial, 
Mr.  Pen-in  made  use  of  some  other  expressions  of  the  same  sort ;  and 
Mr.  Rowan  swears,  that  he  believes  that  some  of  the  jurors  did,  pre- 
vious to  this  trial,  use  expressions  tending  to  asperse  him,  therefoi'e 
they  were  heated  against  him,  and  had  impressions  in  their  minds 
unfavourable  to  him. 

With  respect  to  the  third  point  in  the  notice,  Mr.  Rowan  swears  he 
heard  and  believes  that  Sheriff  Giflfard,  by  whom,  or  by  whose  under- 
sheriff,  the  panel  has  been  arrayed,  is  the  conductor  of  a  paper  gene- 
rally understood  to  be  a  government  paper  ;  that  he  has  a  lucrative 
office  in  the  revenue,  and  is  an  officer  in  the  Dublin  militia  ;  and  that 
he  is  sti'ongly  prejudiced  against  him,  and  did  labour  to  have  such  a 
panel  arrayed,  of  such  men  as  he  knew  Avere  unfairly  prejudiced 
against  him.  These  are  the  affidavits  touching  the  three  grounds  stated 
in  the  traverser's  notice.  And  as  to  the  general  merits,  Mr.  Rowan 
further  states,  that  he  was  present  during  the  ti'ial,  and  that  he  heard 
the  evidence  given  by  Lyster  and  Morton,  charging  him  with  having 
read,  distributed  and  published  the  paper  in  Pai'don's  school,  and  he 
swears  that  said  testimony  is  utterly  false.  This  he  positively  swears 
to ;  but  he  does  not,  however,  deny  any  of  the  particular  facts 
alledged  in  the  information  against  him ;  as  to  that  he  is  silent,  and 
he  undertakes  to  contradict  no  fact  sworn  in  the  evidence  against  him, 
but  that  which  I  have  mentioned. 

Thus  stand  the  affidavits  upon  which  this  motion  is  grounded.  It 
may  not  be  amiss  to  give  a  short  history  of  this  case,  so  far  as  we  have 
judicial  knowledge  of  it,  in  order  to  throw  light  upon  the  situation  in 
which  Mr.  Rowan  stood  when  his  trial  came  on.  He  was  arrested  in 
consequence  of  the  publication  in  question,  above  a  year  ago,  and  gave 
bail  to  that  arrest,  before  Hilary,  1793,  viz.,  on  the  20th  of  December, 
1792,  (I  believe  I  am  not  mistaken,  but  it  is  not  very  material),  and 
the  first  information,  ex  officio,  for  that  is  not  the  one  on  Avliich  he  has 
been  tried,  was  filed,  Hilary,  1793 ;  and  now  I  speak  of  what  passed 
in  this  court.  On  the  sixth  of  May  last,  near  nine  months  before  his 
trial,  in  Easter  Term,  Avhich  ended  the  thirteenth  of  May,  Mr.  Emmet 
moved  to  vacate  his  recognizance :  Mr.  Attorney-General  consented. 
Mr.  Rowan  and  his  bail  appeared  in  court,  and  it  was  vacated,  as  he 
was  ready  to  be  tried  upon  that  information  :  next  was  a  motion  on  his 
behalf,  by  the  Recorder  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  to  appoint  a  day  for  his  trial 
in  the  term  following ;  that  motion  was  made  in  Trinity  Term,  but  the 
Attorney- General  applied  to  the  court  stating,  that  he  had  discovered  an 
error  in  the  information,  and  entered  a  noli  prosequi  ;  accordingly  no 
trial  was  appointed.  A  new  infoi'mation  was  filed,  and  in  Michaelmas 
Term,  several  weeks  after  the  city  sheriffs  were  chosen,  a  trial  at  bar  was 
moved  for,  and  a  day  appointed  in  this  present  Term  (the  29th  January). 
On  the  11th  of  November  last  the  Attorney-General  moved  to  amend 
the  information,  by  striking  out  one  of  the  inuendos.  The  Recorder 
appeared  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Rowan,  and  said  he  was  instructed  not  to 


158  TRIAL  OF 

oppose  it.  On  the  29tli  of  January  the  trial  was  called  on,  and  no 
challenge  having  been  taken  either  to  the  array,  or  to  the  polls,  either 
principal,  or  to  the  favoui-,  the  juiy  were  sworn,  and  tried  the  cause. 
There  were  questions  put  to  some  of  the  jury  touching  theu-  opinions, 
whether  they  had  declared  them  or  not,  upon  the  matter  in  issue  : 
one  of  them  having  said,  after  he  was  sworn,  that  he  had  given  some 
opinion,  he  was  withdrawn  by  consent;  nor  was  it  objected  to  by  the 
crown  lawyers ;  and  these  questions,  which  are  said  in  the  books  to 
tend  to  reproach,  were  asked,  and  not  objected  to. 

I  must  here  invert  the  order  of  the  points,  to  make  it  more  clear, 
by  following  the  order  of  time.  The  first  objection  then,  is  that  stated 
by  Mr.  Rowan's  affidavit  to  the  sheriff's  pannel.  He  swears  that 
Giffard,  by  whom,  or  by  whose  sub-sheriff,  the  pannel  was  arrayed, 
is  conductor  of  a  newspaper,  generally  considered  a  government  paper  ; 
that  he  has  a  lucrative  office  in  the  revenue,  and  is  in  the  militia  ;  and 
he  believes  he  laboured  to  have  such  a  pannel  arrayed,  as  were  pre- 
judiced against  him.  This  I  shall  first  consider  in  point  of  law,  and 
then  of  hardship,  as  addressed  to  the  discretion  of  the  court.  First 
then,  would  it  have  been  a  cause  of  challenge  upon  a  demurrer  ? 
Clearly  not ;  there  is  nothing  certain  nor  ascertained  in  it ;  is  it  in 
law,  a  ground  of  challenge,  that  a  man  conducts,  what  is  considered, 
a  government  newspaper  ?  What  is  a  government  newspaper  in  legal 
estimation  ?  A  chimera  of  the  brain.  Is  it  meant  to  be  insinuated 
that  government,  or  the  crown,  to  use  a  more  proper  expression,  was 
at  war  with  Mr.  Rowan,  or  that  any  thing  done,  on  the  part  of  govern- 
ment, was  to  be  injurious  to  him?  I  hope  not;  nor  that  any  thing 
he  did  is  to  be  injurious  to  government ;  I  trust  not.  I  put  it  the 
other  way :  suppose  it  had  been  objected,  on  the  other  side,  that  a 
juror  had  pul)lished  a  paper  called  Mr.  Rowan's  paper,  or  the  Free- 
man's Journal,  or  any  paper  of  that  kind  ;  would  it  be  an  objection 
that  conld  have  any  weight  ?  Undoubtedly  not ;  no  denomination  of 
subjects,  under  that  general  name,  can  furnish  an  objection  even  to 
the  prosecution. 

Then  again  it  is  stated  that  he  held  an  office  under  government, 
and  was  in  the  militia.  If  this  were  to  be  a  disqualification,  then 
mark  the  consequence  :  every  sheriff  in  the  thirty-two  comities  of 
Ireland  at  large,  would  be  disqualified  to  return  a  pannel :  which 
amounts  to  this  absurdity,  that  the  very  grant  which  qualifies,  by  law, 
every  sheriff  to  make  returns,  does  ipso  facto  disqualify  him,  because 
the  office  of  sherifi"  is  under  the  crown :  and  if  holding  an  office  under 
the  ci'own  disqualify  a  man,  it  involves  this  palpable  absurdity,  that 
the  very  grant,  which  makes  him,  disqualifies  him  from  acting.  But 
it  is  still  weaker  with  respect  to  the  sheriff  of  Dublin,  for  that  sheriff 
is  not  appointed  immediately  by  the  crown,  but  by  election  :  however 
I  have  exposed  this  objection  :  upon  the  other  ground  I  put  it,  that 
it  would  be  absurd  that  the  very  office  should  be  a  direct  disqualifica- 
tion, from  the  fulfilling  of  the  most  important  duty  of  it.  But  then 
Mr.  Rowan  believes  him  to  be  prejudiced  against  him,  and  that  he 
laboured  to  return  a  prejudiced  pannel.  Would  his  belief  be  evidence 
of  favour  ?  Surely  not ;  but  the  laAv,  not  grounded  on  Aveak  sus- 
picions, disregards  such  conjectures,  and  rejects  the  surmises  of 
interested  parties.     Our  law,  also,  appoints  a  proper  time,  when  even 


AKCHinAIvD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  159 

legal  objections  can  only  be  received.  The  time  for  challenging  the 
array,  is  before  any  of  the  jury  are  sworn,  and  for  challenging  the 
polls,  when  they  come  to  the  book  ;  but  if  the  party  accused  takes  his 
chance  with  the  juiy,  he  afterwards  comes  too  late  to  object  to  them ; 
such  is  the  language  of  the  law,  and  the  manifest  principle  of  justice. 
But  to  take  it  upon  the  point  of  hardship,  which  has  been  insisted 
upon,  there  appears  to  be  none ;  he  had  three  months'  notice,  and 
near  two  terms  had  elapsed,  during  which  time  he  never  expressed 
any  discontent  against  the  sheriff,  nor  suggested  to  the  court,  by  affi- 
davit or  otherwise,  that  the  sheriff  was  partial,  or  adverse  to  him.  He 
and  his  attorney  must  both  have  known  that  this  man  was  sheriff,  and 
yet  never  applied  to  have  the  trial  postponed,  or  the  process  directed 
to  any  other  officer  ;  and  even  in  his  affidavit,  marie  since  the  trial, 
which  is  unsupported  by  any  other,  he  does  not  state  that  this  cause 
of  complaint  came  to  his  knowledge  subsequent  to  the  trial ;  indeed 
the  reason  of  his  belief  speaks  the  contrary,  namely  his  being  the 
conductor  of,  what  is  called,  a  government  paper,  an  officer  in  the 
militia,  and  in  the  revenue  ;  which  facts,  it  is  presumable,  he  could 
not  have  been  a  stranger  to  at  the  time  of  the  trial. 

Next  comes  that  objection  to  the  juror  Perrin,  in  answer  to  which, 
what  I  have  already  said,  respecting  time,  that  the  challenge  should 
have  been  made  before  the  j  uror  was  sworn,  and  if  a  challenge  had 
been  made,  there  is  not  enough  in  the  affidavit,  even  supposing  the 
facts  true,  to  support  it.*  It  is  not  sworn  that  he  made  any  declara- 
tion respecting  the  matter  in  issue,  nor  in  malice,  to  the  defendant. 
2  Hawk.  P.  C.  578,  8th  Ed.  The  trior's  oath  illustrates  and  is  applicable, 
it  is  to  try,  whether  the  jurors  are  indifferent  upon  the  matter 
in  issue ;  but  I  still  resort  to  what  I  said  before,  the  objection 
now  comes  too  late.  A  third  objection  goes  to  vitiate  the  verdict  as 
unjust,  founded  upon  false,  or  uncreditable  testimony.  This  is  a 
question  of  great  extent,  and  of  great  consequence  to  the  admin- 
istration of  criminal  law ;  the  object  desired  is,  to  be  let  in,  it  is  said, 
to  impeach  further  by  new  witnesses,  the  credit  of  persons,  already 
attempted  to  be  discredited  on  the  trial.  If  that  were  yielded  to,  no 
verdicts  for  misdemeanours  against  the  traverser  could  stand,  as  long 
as  a  man  could  be  found  to  swear  that  the  witness  did  not  deserve 
credit.  It  would  be  a  direct  and  general  invitation  to  such  perjury 
as  could  not  be  punished  by  an  indictment,  and  would  tend  to  with- 
hold a  part  of  that  evidence  by  which  the  witness  on  the  first  trial 
might  be  impeached,  and  hold  out  an  invitation  to  persons  to  offer 
themselves  after  the  trial,  to  discredit  the  witnesses  with  safety, 
perhaps  profit  to  themselves.  It  would  wound  the  constitution  deeply, 
by  transfering  the  jurisdiction  of  the  jury  to  the  court,  and  would 
totally  overturn  the  trial  by  jury.  It  is  admitted  by  the  defendant's 
counsel,  that  no  case  has  been  found  to  authorise  it,  and  the  case 
cited  7  Mod.  57.  has  been  searched  for,  and  cannot  be  foiuid;  I  have 
found  a  case  in  page  54,  which,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  against  him  ;  it 
would  be  strange  and  unjust  if  it  could,  but  there  are   other  cases, 

*  In  the  case  of  Lady  Herbert  v.  Shaw,  11  Mod.  119.  it  is  said  by  the  court  "if 
a  party  have  cause  of  challenge  and  know  of  it  time  enough  before  the  trial,  if  he 
do  not  challenge  he  shall  not  have  a  new  trial ;  contra,  if  he  has  not  had  timely 
notice  of  it." 


160  TRIAL   OF 

which  go  much  more  strongly  against  him,  where  it  has  been  attempted 
to  set  aside  the  verdict  where  the  witness  has  been  incompetent,  of 
which  the  coui't,  and  not  the  jury,  are  by  law  the  judges.  Hyan  and 
Ballan  cited  7  Mod.  54,  referred  to  5  Bacon,  was  the  case  of  a  non- 
sviit,  and  the  court  refused  to  set  it  aside,  although  the  deed,  upon 
which  the  defendant  relied,  was  sworn  to  be  a  forgery ;  and  Turner 
and  Pearte  1  Term  Rep.  717.  is  much  stronger  than  this,  against 
what  is  applied  for.  An  application  was  made  for  a  new  trial  upon 
affidavit,  that  five  of  the  witnesses  pi'oduced  by  the  party,  who 
obtained  a  verdict,  were  incompetent,  and  ought  not  to  be  examined 
at  all ;  there  is  an  affidavit  in  answer,  that  the  party  who  called  these 
witnesses  did  not  know  that  there  was  any  objection  to  them.  Ashurst, 
J.  said  they  came  too  late  after  trial.  Now  their  evidence  was  to  be 
considered  as  a  nullity,  that  they  never  should  have  been  examined  at 
all ;  not  what  credit  they  deserved,  whether  more  or  less,  which  the 
jury  are  judges  of,  not  the  court.  And  in  that  case,  where  the 
matter  was  of  law  within  the  power  of  the  judges,  whether  competent 
or  not,  though  it  was  sworn  that  five  of  them  were  interested,  and 
incompetent  of  course,  yet  the  court  would  not  hear  the  objection 
because  it  came  too  late,  and  Mr.  Justice  Buller,  a  very  great  lawyer, 
says  "  there  has  been  no  instance  of  this  court's  granting  a  new  trial, 
on  an  allegation,  that  some  of  the  witnesses  examined  were  interested, 
and  I  should  be  very  sorry  to  make  the  first  precedent."  There 
never  yet  has  been  a  case  in  which  the  party  has  been  permitted  after 
trial  to  avail  himself  of  any  objection  which  was  not  made  at  the  time 
of  the  examination.  Mr.  Justice  Grose,  in  the  same  case,  says,  "  In 
the  first  place  it  does  not  clearly  appear,  that  the  plaintiffs  did  not 
know  of  the  objection  at  the  time  of  the  trial.  It  is  sworn  very 
loosely ;  and  if  they  knew  of  it,  at  that  time,  that  would  be  a  decisive 
reason  for  refusing  to  allow  it  now."  And  now  I  shall  apply  this 
opinion,  in  this  case,  to  the  last  objection  made  by  counsel,  as  well  as 
to  what  I  have  already  said ;  but  there  it  was  said  by  Mr.  Justice 
Grose,  that  the  objection  to  the  witness  might  be  an  ingredient  if  the 
party  applying  had  merits.  In  2  Term  Rep.  113  in  the  case  of 
Vernon  and  others,  the  assignees  of  Tyler  v.  Hankey,  the  court  would 
not  grant  a  new  trial,  to  let  the  party  into  a  defence,  of  which  he  was 
apprized  at  the  first  trial.  I  have  cited  these  cases  to  shew,  that  even 
in  case  of  incompetency,  where  the  witness  ought  not  to  be  permitted 
to  stand  upon  the  table,  or  open  his  lips — there  after  trial,  the  court 
would  not  set  aside  a  verdict  upon  that  ground.  But  see  what  Mr. 
Rowan's  affidavit  is,  even  if  it  could  be  listened  to  as  to  his  own 
innocence  ;  he  says,  he  heard  the  evidence  of  Lyster  and  Morton, 
chai-ging  him  with  having  read,  distributed  and  published  the  paper 
in  the  information,  in  Cope-street,  at  Pardon's  fencing  school,  and 
positively  swears,  that  their  testimony  was  utterly  false.  Now  first, 
I  say,  that  no  trial  or  verdict  was  ever  set  aside,  in  a  case  like  this, 
upon  such  an  affidavit.  It  is  at  best  the  oath  of  the  party  to  his  own 
innocence ;  but  it  is  not  so  much  ;  hei'e  he  does  not  deny  the  facts, 
not  one  of  them  ;  and  let  me  take  the  words  "  utterly  false"  in  every 
sense  they  convey  ;  if  he  means  false  in  every  thing,  then  he  has 
surely  made  an  affidavit  stating  that  he  has  heard  the  evidence  of 
Lyster  and  Morton,  charging  him  with   having  read,  distributed   and 


ARCttlBALT)  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  l6l 

published  the  paper,  that,  he  says,  is  utterly  false.  To  use  the  ex- 
pression of  one  of  the  judges  in  that  case  I  cited,  it  is  a  great  deal 
too  loose  ;  the  party  sAvearing  for  himself  does  not  even  contradict 
Lyster ;  he  does  not  contradict  any  one  of  these  facts  specially.  I 
will  ask,  could  he  be  found  guilty  of  perjury,  upon  such  loose 
swearing,  supposing  it  to  be  false  ?  I  should  think  not.  But  it  is 
material  to  another  part,  that  this  is  the  only  pai't  of  their  testimony 
which  he  has  contradicted,  and  he  might,  when  he  undertook  to 
contradict  any  of  the  facts,  have  contradicted  the  whole,  or  any  other 
pai-t,  as  far  as  the  truth  would  justify  him,  at  least  upon  heai'say  or 
belief ;  he  has  not  done  that. 

But  it  is  urged  fi'om  the  bar,  upon  a  point  not  stated  in  the  notice, 
but  from  the  recollection  of  one  of  the  counsel,  unto  which  no  affidavit 
refers,  that  I  assumed  to  the  jury  the  fact  of  a  meeting,  at  Cope-street, 
of  150  men,  at  which  Mr.  Rowan  was  present,  which  he  has  not 
contradicted ;  upon  that  I  have  built  a  strong  inference  of  guilt, 
upon  the  presumption  arising  from  their  silence.  Here  I  will  state, 
as  accurately  as  I  can,  Avhat  I  did  say ;  what  I  did  not  say,  which  has 
been  imputed  to  me  ;  in  which  I  have  the  concurrence  of  my  brethi-en 
as  to  their  recollection.  I  told  the  jury,  and  meant  to  have  told  them, 
as  far  as  my  recollection  serves  me,  that  the  observation  made  by  one 
of  the  prosecutor's  counsel,  indeed  by  two  of  them,  first  Mr.  Attorney- 
General,  and  afterwards  Mr.  Prime- Sergeant,  struck  me,  as  obvious 
and  strong,  viz.  that  the  defendant  did  not  contradict  by  a  single 
witness,  any  one  fact  sworn  to  against  him ;  I  then  stated  some  of 
the  leading  facts  sworn  to,  those  facts  as  I  thought  easiest  to  be  con- 
tradicted, and  those  facts  which  brought  with  them,  if  they  were  true, 
the  means  of  defence  ;  for  example,  that  there  was  a  meeting  in  open 
day  at  a  public  fencing  school,  where  from  one  to  two  hundred  per- 
sons, many  of  them  in  Volunteer  unifomis,  were  sworn  to  have  been 
present;  this  fact,  I  told  them,  was  sworn  to  by  two  witnesses,  and  if 
the  jury  believed  there  was  a  meeting  of  the  kind  and  number_sworn 
to,  it  was  to  my  mind  a  volume  of  evidence  ;  I  say  so  still,  that  the 
defendant  did  not  produce  any  of  the  persons  to  contradict  any  of 
these  facts,  or  prove  that  he  did  not  read,  publish  or  disperse  the  libel  in 
question.  He  has  now  made  an  affidavit,  and  see  the  power  of  per- 
verting fancy ;  Gentlemen  argue  for  an  hour  upon  affidavits,  because 
the  facts  sworn  to  are  not  contradicted,  and  they  insist  upon  these 
uncontradicted  facts  as  truths  ;  these  six  affidavits,  say  their  counsel, 
are  strong  and  uncontradicted,  and  therefore  the  facts  in  them  must 
be  assumed ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Rowan  has  made  an  affidavit, 
and  he  has  not  to  this  hour,  ventured  to  contradict  all  the  facts 
proved  against  him  on  the  trial ;  and  shall  we  not  be  at  liberty  in  our 
turn,  to  assume  upon  this  motion  that  he  cannot  contradict  them.  He 
swears  he  heard  the  evidence ;  he  has  not  ventured  to  contradict  any 
of  those  facts  ;  he  has  not  sworn  that  there  was  not  a  meeting  of  so 
many  persons,  nor  any  thing  of  that  nature. 

Now  I  will  state  what  the  evidence  was ;  Lyster  swore,  that  on 
the  16th  December,  1792,  he  was  at  Pardon's  fencing-school,  in 
Cope-street,  in  the  city  of  Dublin  ;  that  there  was  from  one  to  two 
hundred  persons  present  in  scarlet  uniforms :  that  Napper  Tandy, 
Hamilton  Rowan,  and   others,   were  sitting  at  a  table  :  the  witness 

M 


162  TRIAL  OF 

went  in  from  curiosity,  and  he  was  told  by  Mr.  Rowan,  to  tlie  best  of 
his  knowledge,  that  no  man  in  coloni'ed  clothes  could  be  admitted 
there.  He  does  not  contradict  that  conversation  with  this  man — that 
there  was  a  gallery,  to  which  he  might  go  ;  that  is  not  contradicted — 
that  Hamilton  Rowan  was  very  busy,  and  walked  about  with  papers 
in  his  hand  ;  these  facts,  let  it  be  remembered  too,  that  he  swore  upon 
belief  and  vague  recollection  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge.  I  told 
the  jury  this  was  not  evidence,  and  should  be  rejected;  but  he  does 
not  now  contradict  any  of  those  facts  ;  then  he  goes  to  the  publication. 
So  it  was  with  respect  to  Morton,  what  did  I  tell  the  jury  ?  after 
stating  the  act  of  parliament  which  declares,  if  not  gives,  a  power  to 
the  jury,  to  tind  upon  the  wliole  matter,  which  I  told  them  they  had 
a  right  to  do  ;  that  the  credit  of  the  witnesses  was  with  them,  and 
not  with  me ;  that  they  were  to  find,  upon  the  whole  matter  in  issue, 
and  that  they  were  the  judges  of  the  fact,  and  the  intention.  Did  I 
assume  any  fact  ?  No ;  that  fact,  as  well  as  every  other,  was  to  be 
determined  upon  belief  or  disbelief  of  the  witnesses.  Such  may  not 
have  been  my  identical  words,  but  such  must  have  been  my  manifest 
meaning,  and  the  court  approved  of  what  I  said.  And  I  say  now 
with  certainty,  I  never  said  to  the  jury,  that  the  defendant's  silence 
upon  those  facts,  was  to  supply  any  defect  in  the  prosecutor's 
evidence  ;  I  disclaim  it.  I  did  not  assume  the  fact,  nor  did  I  mean 
or  direct  that  the  jury  should  take  it  for  granted,  that  there  was  any 
meeting  whatsoever. 

These  facts  were  sworn  to,  like  the  others,  by  two  witnesses, 
except  the  fact  of  publication,  which  was  the  criminal  fact,  and 
which  was  sworn  to  by  one  witness  only,  and  so  I  stated  to  the  jury, 
that  Lyster  whose  credit  was  attacked,  if  they  did  not  believe,  I  told 
them  they  ought  to  acquit.  I  then  left  the  whole  of  the  facts  and 
credit  of  the  v/itnesses  and  the  intention  of  the  paper  (if  they  believed 
the  defendant  published  it)  to  the  jury,  who  were,  I  told  them,  to 
determine  upon  the  whole  matter. 

But  suppose  the  fact  otherwise,  and  as  favourable  to  the  defendant 
as  his  counsel  Avished  to  have  it  taken,  it  cannot  avail  upon  this 
motion  either  in  law,  or  justice,  or  fact,  or  legal  discretion ;  first  it 
makes  no  part  of  the  notice ;  next  it  should  have  been  objected  to 
below.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  gentleman  who  urged  it  now,  and  he 
was  not  remiss,  to  have  taken  notice  of  it  at  tlie  time  ;  thirdly,  it 
falls  under  the  general  rule  that  any  objection  which  could  have 
been  made  below,  and  contradicted  or  refuted  by  evidence,  cannot 
afterwards  be  taken  advantage  of.  It  might  have  been  instantly 
answered,  qualified,  contradicted,  or  adhered  to ;  but  in  truth,  the 
general  course  of  the  defence  rejected  all  ideas  of  disproof;  it  was  to 
justify  that  paper;  and  standing  upon  that  ground,  it  scorned  to 
deny  the  publication  ;  I  take  that  for  granted  ;  for  no  attempt  was  made 
to  contradict  a  single  fact  sworn  to  by  one  or  other  of  those  wit- 
nesses. But,  upon  this  motion,  how  is  it  to  affect  our  discretion  ? 
Does  it  appear  now  that  any  of  those  facts  are  contradicted  ? 
What  are  we  then  to  judge  of?  Is  it  that  manifest  injustice  has 
been  done,  which  is  the  principle  that  governs  motions  for  new 
trials  ?  Is  there  any  thing  like  a  new  substantive  defence  set  up, 
which  has  not  been  made  Ijefoi-e  ?     Is  it  said  by  any  of  the  persons 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  163 

who  liave  made  affidavits  here,  or  by  the  traverser  himself,  that  he 
can  by  witnesses  contradict  these  facts  ?  Not  a  word  of  any  snch 
thing ;  and  if  we  are  to  draw  tlie  same  inference  from  the  silence  of 
the  affidavits,  which  was  drawn  from  not  answering  them  in  the  argu- 
ments of  the  case ;  see  how  it  stands,  what  he  has  not  contradicted 
he  has  admitted — but  I  have  no  occasion  for  that.  This  motion  is 
addressed  to  the  discretion  of  the  court ;  that  is  to  the  court  bound 
by  the  curb  of  legal  discretion,  for  we  cannot  indulge  our  feelings  be 
they  what  they  may,  and  legal  discretion  is  as  well  ascertained  as  any 
express  point  of  law.  Adjudications  are  evidence — we  are  obliged  to 
follow  these,  as  evidence  of  what  the  law  is.  It  is  said  there  is  an  ana- 
logy respecting  the  granting  of  new  trials,  between  cases  of  misde- 
meanors and  civil  cases,  and  yet,  in  order  to  determine  this  motion, 
as  defendant's  counsel  desire,  we  must  abandon  that  very  ground  of 
analogy :  the  great  principle  is  that,  and  that  alone,  which  is  recognized 
in  Bright  and  Enyon  1  Bur.  390,  alluded  to  and  adopted  in  many 
others,  from  the  cases  in  Styles  (448,  462,  466,)  to  this  hour — Has  sub- 
stantial justice  been  done  ?  Has  the  party  who  requires  a  new  trial  been 
manifestly  injured  ?  Upon  what  ground  is  it  we  are  to  presume  an 
injury  done  to  the  traverser?  He  has  had  fourteen  months  to  prepare 
himself.  In  trials  for  their  lives,  men  have  often  not  more  than  one,  and 
very  seldom  more  than  six  months  ;  he  had  fourteen — they,  though 
confined  and  in  prison,  are  supposed  to  have  time  to  defend  themselves 
in  felonies  of  death — here  the  party  at  large,  complains,  invites,  pro- 
vokes the  trial.  Has  he  been  surprised  ?  Has  he  wanted  the  aid  of 
counsel  ?  Has  he  been  unattended  with  friends  and  foUowei's  ? 
Look  at  the  history  of  the  trial.  What  new  defence  has  he  alledged  ? 
has  he,  even  himself,  contradicted  the  facts  charged  against  him?  No; 
from  what  then  are  we  to  infer,  that  injustice  has  been  done  to  him  ? 
It  was  said  that  whether  by  right  or  by  courtesy,  by  indulgence,  or 
connivance,  persons  in  his  situation  find  a  way  to  the  matter  charged 
against  them.  See  how  that  stands :  there  may  be  very  good  and 
sufficient  and  proper  I'easons,  not  to  disclose  the  name  of  the  party 
swearing  the  information  ;  to  protect  him  from  violence  or  corruption 
of  the  pai'ty  sworn  against.  How  is  this  case  ?  The  very  thing 
which  most  deserves  to  be  concealed,  was  made  known  to  him  and  his 
agent ;  for  the  person,  that  is  to  swear  against  him,  is  disclosed  to 
them,  they  trace  him  to  the  place  of  his  birth,  they  enquire  into  his 
family  and  connections,  they  follow  him  through  his  private  bargains 
and  engagements,  they  become  acquainted  Avith  his  indiscreet,  and 
perhaps  immoral  conduct ;  shall  we  presume,  that  this  man,  whose 
name  was  then  at  the  foot  of  the  examination,  was  unknown  to  him  ? 
Where  are  we  to  look  for  that  substantial  justice,  by  v/hich  he  can 
protect  himself  on  another  trial  ?  I  find  it  no  where  ;  I  find  it  not 
in  the  principle  of  the  criminal  law  ;  I  find  it  not  in  adjudged  cases ; 
I  find  it  not  in  the  sovnid  discretion  of  the  court ;  he  has  had 
every  possible  indulgence ;  he  has  had  every  latitude  of  defence 
by  justification  (at  the  least  as  far  as  it  would  go)  by  insinua- 
tion, by  address  ;  and  I  trust,  in  this  free  country,  I  am  not 
mistaken  when  I  suffer  counsel  to  go  as  large,  and  take,  as  wide  a 
range,  as  decent  language  will  admit,  to  convey  every  sentiment 
which  may  assist  his  client :  can  we  say  the  merits  are  not  tried  ?    Is 


164  TRIAL   OF 

it  said  the  merits  are  in  his  favour  ?  But  see,  as  I  said  before,  how 
perverting  imagination  can  change  the  most  common  maxim :  is  it 
alledged  that  the  juror,  who  is  complained  of,  exerted  himself  to  in- 
fluence the  others  ?  that  this  was  a  case  of  a  struggle  amongst  the 
jury?  O!  Xo  ;  but  the  case  was  so  clear,  that  there  was  not  a  minute 
a  man  in  the  deliberation.  Then  where  there  is  not  a  struggle,  and  it  is 
not  said  that  he  did  act  partially,  or  work  upon  the  other  eleven,  or  that 
by  his  unjust  means,  the  verdict  was  obtained;  yet  we  are  desired  to 
step  out  of  our  way — to  go  unconstitutionally  into  the  jury  box,  and 
say,  that  they  should  not  have  given  credit  to  the  witnesses,  where  the 
constitution  gives  them  a  power  to  decide.  I  am  therefore,  clearly  of 
opinion,  that  the  verdict  cannot,  upon  any  principal  of  law  or  justice, 
be  disturbed.* 

Mr.  Justice   Boyd This  is  an  application  to  set   aside  a  verdict 

upon  an  information.  My  Lord  Clonmel  has  stated  the  affidavits  so 
much  at  large,  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  take  up  much  time. 
The  counsel  in  the  argument  rested  the  case ; 

1st.  Upon  the  declaration  of  a  juror  against  Mi'.  Rowan. 

2nd.  Upon  the  partiality  of  the  sheritF. 

3rd.  The  incredibility  of  Lyster  the  witness,  and 

Lastly,  the  misdirection  of  the  court. 

As  to  the  declaration  of  the  juror,  there  are  two  affidavits,  which 
state  it,  but  it  was  upon  a  common  subject ;  it  had  no  relation  what- 
ever to  the  matter  in  issue  ;  it  does  not  appear  that  this  declaration 
was  malicious,  and  the  authority  in  Hawkins  establishes  that  a  decla- 
ration to  prevent  a  man  from  being  a  juror,  must  be  pertinent  to  the 
matter  in  issue,  and  malicious.  Tlie  declaration  of  Perrin,  in  my 
opinion,  if  laid  before  the  court  in  proper  time,  was  not  a  ground  of 
cliallenge  in  point  of  law  ;  and  I  must  conclude  it  now  comes  too 
late  ;  it  was  an  objection  merely  to  the  favour  ;  it  is  a  matter  in  Pais, 
to  be  determined  by  triors  appointed  ;  and  here  the  court  are  desired 
to  assume  the  province  of  a  jury  and  try  it  here.  But  I  think  it  now 
comes  too  late.  In  this  case  it  does  not  appear,  that  justice  has  not 
been  done,  which  is  the  true  ground  of  setting  aside  verdicts.  It  is 
no  where  suggested,  that  the  misconduct  of  this  juror  was  the  cause, 
by  which  the  verdict  was  obtained.  The  shortness  of  the  time  that 
the  jury  were  withdrawn,  is  a  sti'ong  ground  to  presume,  they  were 
not  persuaded  by  him. 

2dly.  As  to  the  ch'irge  of  partiality  in  the  sheriff,  Mr.  RoAvan  in 
his  affidavit  speaks  only  as  to  belief;  he  does  not  charge  it  positively. 
The  same  observation  I  have  already  mentioned,  goes  to  this  point ; 
there  was  not  a  challenge  taken  to  the  array,  on  the  ground  of  parti- 
ality in  the  returning  officer.  This  being  an  application  to  the 
discretion  of  the  court  to  set  aside  the  verdict,  the  question  is,  has 
justice  not  been  done  ?  The  charge  is  general  upon  belief;  and  yet 
the  affidavit  does  not  say,  that  the  sheriff  did  pi-ocure  a  partial  jury, 
or  that  he  could  procure  it ;  and  in  this  case,  as  in  every  other,  the 
not  making  objections   at  the  trial,  is  a  strong  ground  to  prevent  the 

Rex.  V  Mawbey  G.  T.  R.  638  ;  Vernon  v  Hankey  2.  T.  R.  113 ;  2  Salk  647,  653  ; 
Bull  N.  Pnus327;   Sayev  Rep  27 :    1    T   R  717;  Chitty's   Criminal   Law   636; 

tlowlet  V  Crntehelev  5  Taunt  277- 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON   KOWAN.  165 

court  from  interfering,  especially  where  the  traverser,  in  no  part  of 
his  affidavit,  swears  he  is  not  guilty  ;  or  has  a  good  cause  of  defence 
to  make  upon  a  new  trial,  which,  in  my  opinion,  are  two  material 
grounds,  in  granting  new  trials.  As  to  the  incredibility  of  Lyster's 
evidence,  I  must  observe  that  evidence  was  ofiered  at  the  trial,  which 
shews  to  demonstration,  that  the  defendant  was  prepared ;  he  pro- 
duced three  witnesses  against  Lyster,  for  lie  did  produce  Blake,  Smith 
and  Hatchell,  their  evidence  and  Lyster's,  and  Morton's,  all  went  up  to 
the  jury  ;  the  jury  have  found  their  verdict ;  and  this  application  is 
made  to  the  discretion  of  the  court,  to  set  that  verdict  aside  and  to 
grant  a  new  trial,  to  let  in  further  evidence  in  support  of  that,  which 
the  jury  did  not  credit,  that  is,  of  the  witnesses,  who  charge  that 
Lyster  ought  not  to  be  believed  on  his  oath.  There  is  no  instance  in 
the  books  to  be  met  with  to  warrant  such  a  proceeding.  There  are 
instances,  where  a  court  has  refused  to  set  aside  a  verdict,  on  the 
ground  of  incompetency  of  the  witnesses  on  the  former  trial,  because 
the  defendant  had  taken  a  chance  of  a  verdict  in  his  favour.  Sup- 
pose a  new  trial  granted,  what  would  be  the  consequence  ?  Lyster 
would  be  examined  before  another  jury;  with  the  suspicion  of  the 
court  of  King's  Bench  falling  upon  him,  that  he  was  an  incredible 
Avitness. 

As  to  the  misdirection  of  the  j  udge  ;   I  attended  to  every  word,  as 
I  always  do  to  what  falls  from  his  lordship  ;  I  recollect  the  substance 
of  the  charge,  it  had  my  entire  approbation,  it  was,  that  the  defendant 
did  not  contradict,  by  a  single  witness,  any  one   fact  charged  against 
him.     His   lordship  stated   several   of  the   facts,  which    he  thought 
might  be  disproved,  if  not  true  ;  the   meeting  was  at  noon  day,  in  a 
public  room,  and  150   persons  present,  in  uniform  ;  the  evidence  of 
Lyster  was  confirmed  by  Morton,  but  Morton  had  not  the  paper,  but 
heard  the  expression,   "  citizen  soldiers,  to  arms."     On  the  whole  the 
evidence  went  to  the  jury,  but  there  was  only  one  witness  to  the  fact 
of  publication.     If  the  jury  believed   there   was  any  meeting  of  the 
kind  and   number  that  was  so  mentioned,  the  defendant  did  not  pro- 
duce a  witness  to  contradict  one  of  the  facts  so  alledged.  His  lordship 
did  not  say,  that  the  defendant's  silence  was  to  supply  the  defects  in 
the  prosecutor's  evidence.     All  the  facts  were  left  to  the  jury  by  the 
court,  and  each  of  us  made  such  observations  as  occurred  to  him.  By 
the  verdict  the  jury,   it  appears,  did  give  credit  to  the  witnesses,  and 
did  believe  there  was  a  meeting.     The  description  given  of  the  meet- 
ing was,  that  there   were    150  persons   present.     These  were  strong 
circumstances  to  go  to  the  jury.     If  you  believe  there  was  a  meeting, 
not  one  of  those  persons  has  been  brought  forwai'd  to  contradict  these 
assertions.     I  know  of  no  judicial  determination   of  any  case  similar 
to  the  present.     In  this  case,   the  traverser  does  not  swear  he  is  not 
guilty.     If  this  was  a  civil  case,  here  is  not  ground  for  a  good  demurrer. 
On  the  whole,  I  concur  with   Lord  Clonmel,   that   this  verdict  ought 
not  to  be  impeached. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — This  is  an  application,  to  set  aside  a  verdict 
of  guilty  in  a  criminal  case,  on  several  affidavits.  I  hope  that  it  will 
be  recollected,  that  the  affidavits  have  been  read  without  opposition 
from  the  counsel  for  the  crown,  and  that  the  court  have  not  given 
any  opinion  whether  after  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a  criminal  case,  the 


166  TRIAL   OF 

defendant  has  a  right  to  have  such  affidavits  read,  as  have  been  pro- 
duced in  this  case ;  but  as  they  have  been  read,  I  shall  examine  the 
grounds  of  the  motion,  which  is  founded  on  them. 

1st.  The  verdict  is  sought  to  be  set  aside  (according  to  the  notice) 
on  this  ground,  that  it  is  contrary  to  justice,  founded  on  false  testi- 
mony not  deserving  any  credit ;  those  are  the  words  of  the  notice. 

This  is  a  direct  appeal  from  the  jury  to  the  court,  in  a  matter  solely 
within  the  pi'ovince  of  the  jury;  the  court  cannot  decide  on  the  truth 
or  falsehood  of  evidence,  and  yet  we  are  desired  to  set  aside  this  ver- 
dict on  the  ground,  that  the  evidence  was  false,  and  that  the  jury 
ought  not  to  have  believed  the  witnesses. 

No  fact  sworn  to  by  either  of  the  witnesses  for  the  crown,  on  the 
trial,  was  then  contradicted  by  evidence,  no  new  witness  is  discovered, 
who  can,  in  case  of  a  new  trial,  contradict  any  fact  sworn  by  either 
of  those  witnesses. 

The  truth  of  their  testimony  as  given  on  the  trial,  is  even  now  con- 
tradicted only  by  the  affidavit  of  the  defendant ;  the  covn-t  can  make 
no  distinction  betAveen  defendants,  and  no  instance  is,  or  I  believe  can 
be  shewn,  where  the  oath  of  a  person  found  guilty,  contradicting  the 
witnesses  examined  against  him  on  the  trial,  has  been  allowed  to 
shake  the  verdict  that  convicted  him  ;  and  if  it  should  be  suffered  to 
do  so,  I  believe  few  convictions  would  stand. 

But  it  is  said,  that  if  the  verdict  should  be  set  aside,  new  light 
will  be  let  in  upon  the  case  by  the  evidence  disclosed  in  these 
affidavits. 

But  what  is  the  new  light  that  is  suggested ;  not  upon  the  merits 
of  the  case  ;  it  is  not  alledged  that  any  new  ground  of  defence  is 
discovei-ed ;  no  affidavit  of  any  of  the  new  witnesses  says  one  word 
of  the  matter  in  issue  in  the  cause,  and  the  defendant  himself  does 
not  in  his  affidavit  state,  that  if  the  verdict  shall  be  set  aside,  he  can 
at  a  future  trial,  produce  any  evidence,  as  to  the  fact  with  which  he 
is  charged. 

But  it  is  said,  that  new  light  can  be  thrown  upon  the  defect  of 
credit  in  Lyster,  the  principal  witness  for  the  crown. 

Not  by  shewing  that  any  fact  he  swore  Avas  false,  the  best  mode  of 
discrediting  a  witness  ;  it  is  not  suggested  that  the  defendant  can 
produce  any  evidence  to  that  effect. 

But,  two  witnesses  can  be  produced,  who  will  swear,  that  they 
think  he  ought  not  to  be  believed,  and  to  let  in  these  opinions,  we  are 
desired  to  set  aside  the  verdict. 

I  say,  to  let  in  these  opinions,  for  the  particular  facts  of  perjury, 
which  they  state,  could  not  be  suffered  to  be  proved  at  the  trial. 

And  I  think  it  is  at  least  doubtful,  whether  if  they  had  appeared 
on  the  trial,  which  has  been  had,  they  could  (from  any  thing  appearing 
on  their  affidavits)  have  given  any  evidence  at  all ;  for  neither  of 
them  speaks  as  to  Lyster's  general  character  ;  whether  that  be  such 
as  not  to  deserve  credit  in  a  court  of  justice,  and  it  is  with  respect  to 
his  general  character  only,  that  a  witness  can  be  prepared  to  defend 
himself,  and  not  against  the  opinion  of  an  individual. 

But  if  it  Avei-e  admitted,  that  a  verdict  might  be  set  aside,  where 
a  party  is  surprised  by  the  production  of  a  suspicious  witness,  who 
he  had  no  reason   to  suppose  would  be  examined  against  him  ;  yet 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  167 

this  is  not  that  case ;  here  it  is  evident,  that  there  was  no  such  sur- 
prise ;  the  defendant  knew  before  trial,  that  Lyster  was  his  prose- 
cutor, he  was  prepared  at  the  ti-ial  to  impeach  his  credit ;  he  examined 
three  witnesses  for  that  purpose,  the  jury  have  weighed  and  decided 
upon  that  credit ;  and  can  we  say,  after  the  credit  of  this  witness  has 
been  examined  by4he  jury,  that  particular  facts,  sworn  by  him,  in 
some  of  which  he  was  corroborated  by  another  witness,  and  contra- 
dicted by  none,  ought  not  to  be  believed,  because  persons  come  forward 
and  state  that  they  would  not  give  him  credit  on  his  oath ;  it  would, 
in  my  apprehension,  be  a  most  mischievous  decision,  if  the  court  were 
to  do  so.  And  I  know  not  how  any  verdict  could  ever  stand,  if  it 
were  sufficient  ground  to  set  it  aside,  tliat  new  witnesses  come  and 
tell  us,  that  the  former  witnesses  ought  not  to  be  believed. 

My  lord  has  cited  cases  on  this  point,  which  I  need  not  take  up 
time  in  again  going  over. 

As  to  the  declarations  sworn  to  have  been  made  by  a  juror — 

Mr.  Curran  cited  a  case,  which  cannot  be  found  in  the  book  referred 
to ;  but  supposing  it  has  been  decided,  that  a  cause  of  challenge  not 
known  at  the  trial,  is  sufficient  to  set  aside  a  verdict,  I  cannot  feel, 
that  mere  general  declarations,  though  severe  ones,  relative  to  the 
defendant's  political  conduct,  made  long  before  the  trial,  upon  a  con- 
versation, no  way  concerning  the  matter  in  issue,  would  have  been 
sufficient  cause  for  a  challenge.  I  cannot  think  that  such  general 
declarations  could  form  any  ground  of  challenge,  for  if  they  wovdd, 
suppose  a  rebellion  in  the  country,  no  loyal  subject  could  be  a  juror 
on  the  trial  of  any  of  the  principal  persons  concerned  in  it. 

As  to  the  objection  grounded  on  the  conduct  of  the  sheriff,  it  is 
enough  to  say,  that  no  particular  act  of  partiality  is  stated,  and  that 
his  having  endeavoured  to  procure  a  prejudiced  jiiry  is  stated,  only 
on  belief — no  act  of  the  sheriff  is  stated,  upon  which  that  belief  is 
founded  ;  nor  whether  it  was  formed  before  the  trial  or  not  ;  and  if 
the  defendant  had  appi'ehended  that  the  sheriff  would  misconduct 
himself,  he  ought  to  have  taken  the  proper  steps  to  have  the  jury  pro- 
cess directed  to  another  officer,  which  could  easily  have  been  done,  if 
sufficient  grounds  existed. 

These  objections — to  the  Avitnesses,  the  juror  and  the  sheriff,  are  all 
tlie  grounds,  upon  wliicli  the  verdict  is  impeached  by  the  notice  served 
on  the  part  of  the  defendant ;  and,  in  my  mind,  it  would  be  a  severe 
and  dangerous  injury  to  the  trial  by  jury,  if  we  were  to  disturb  this 
verdict  on  any  or  all  of  those  grounds. 

But  an  objection  is  taken  to  my  lord's  charge  to  the  jury,  and  it  is 
contended,  that  there  has  been  a  misdirection  ;  that  an  illegal  charge 
has  been  given,  and  that,  on  that  account,  the  verdict  ought  to  be  set 
aside. 

When  that  charge  was  given  to  the  juiy,  I  thought  it  a  clear,  able, 
fair  and  lea:al  charo;e — I  think  so  still. 

I  attended  to  it  minvitely  ;  as  it  was  my  duty  to  do  ;  if  I  had  per- 
ceived any  assumption  of  any  fact,  any  observation  in  my  opinion 
unwarranted  by  law  ;  I  should  have  pointed  it  out  to  his  lordship  on 
the  spot ;  and  from  the  manner,  in  Avhich  my  humble  assistance  has 
been  at  all  times  received  by  him,  1  am  confident  that  I  should  have 
liad  liis  thanks  for  so  doing. 


168  TKIA-L  OF 

I  saw  no  reason  to  object  to  any  part  of  the  charge  when  it  was 
delivered,  and  I  expressly  concurred  in  it. 

When,  upon  the  recollection  of  counsel,  without  affidavit,  of  the 
Avords  of  the  charge,  my  lord  was  stated  to  have  used  expressions  to 
the  jury,  which  conveyed  to  them — absolutely  that  there  was  a  meet- 
ing of  a  great  number  of  persons — I  had  no  recollection  of  the  fact  of 
a  meeting  having  been  assumed  in  the  charge. 

And  when  it  was  contended,  at  the  bar,  that  it  was  put  to  the  jury 
in  words  amounting  to  this  position  or  effect,  that  the  silence  of  the 
defendant  would  establish  a  charge,  or  supply  evidence  not  fully 
proving  the  case,  I  must  say,  that  the  impression  made  on  my  mind, 
by  the  charge,  excited  no  such  idea.  I  conceived  the  charge  to  have  left 
the  fact  of  the  existence  of  a  meeting,  and  the  other  facts  of  the  case, 
faiidy  to  the  jury,  upon  the  evidence  given  by  the  prosecutor's  wit- 
nesses, without  assuming  the  truth  of  any  of  those  facts,  but  leaving 
the  credit  of  the  witnesses  to  the  jury.  I  requested  his  lordship  to 
give  me,  in  writing,  his  charge,  as  to  this  part  of  the  case,  according 
to  his  recollection  of  it,  and  he  gave  it  to  me  as  stated  by  him  to-day — 
and  the  substance  and  effect  of  it  corresponded  with  my  own  recollec- 
tion. As  to  the  observation  objected  to,  that  the  silence  of  the 
defendant  was  strong  evidence,  which  was  the  meaning  conveyed  by 
the  words,  a  volume  of  evidence  :  I  think  the  observation  justifiable, 
prefaced,  as  it  is  by  my  lord  stated  to  have  been,  and  from  whose 
statement  I  must  take  it,  in  this  manner — "if  the  jury  should  believe 
there  was  a  meeting  of  the  kind  and  number  sworn  to  by  the  two 
witnesses,  the  not  producing  any  person  who  was  at  that  meeting  to 
contradict  any  of  the  particular  facts,  sworn  by  them,  or  to  prove  that 
he  did  not  publish  the  libel  in  the  manner  sworn."  Is  this  a  violation 
of  the  maxim,  that  no  man  is  bound  to  accuse  himself?  Does  this 
amount  to  the  position,  that  the  silence  of  the  defendant  will  prove  a 
charge  ?  It  will  not ;  it  would  be  monstrous  if  it  were  so  held.  If 
no  charge  is  px'oved,  he  may  be  for  ever  silent ;  but  where  one  wit- 
ness has  fully  proved  the  fact  of  publication,  if  believed ;  where  he 
stated  that  fact,  attended  with  a  number  of  circumstances,  easy  to  be 
contradicted  if  false  ;  where  many  of  those  circumstances  are  cor- 
roborated by  the  evidence  of  another  witness,  who  swore  he  was  at 
such  a  meeting  as,  Lyster  described.  Is  it  not  a  fair  observation  in 
a  judge  to  say,  (where  no  manner  of  evidence  to  contradict  any  of 
those  facts  is  given)  that  if  the  jury  believe  that  there  was  such  a 
meeting  as  sworn,  the  silence  of  the  defendant  is  strong  evidence — 
strong  evidence  that  the  facts  which  are  sworn  to  have  passed  at  that 
meeting,  and  which  might,  if  false,  be  readily  contradicted — were 
truly  sworn. 

If  no  case  is  made  out  in  evidence,  by  the  prosecutor,  the  defendant 
may  be  safely  silent,  and  the  jury  ought  to  be  told  by  the  judge,  that 
no  case  is  proved  ;  but  if  a  case  is  sworn  to,  and  fully  by  the  prose- 
cutoi-,  if  the  defendant  chooses  to  be  silent,  as  to  the  facts,  and  to  rest 
on  the  discredit  of  the  witnesses  against  him,  he  runs  the  risk  of  their 
being  believed ;  and  if  the  account  they  give  is  such,  and  circum- 
stances sworn  to  by  them,  strike  the  jury  to  be  such,  as  that  they 
might  be  easily  ansAvered  and  contj;adieted  if  false,  then  if  no  answer 
is  given,   the  jury   may  be  well  warranted  to  belieAe  them  ;  and  a 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON   ROWAN.  169 

charge  of  a  judge,  fully  and  strongly  putting  such  case  before  the 
jury,  and  with  such  an  observation,  would  not  in  my  mind  be  repre- 
hensible. 

Suppose  the  only  witness  in  a  case  of  felony,  should  be  an  approver, 
a  witness  whose  credit  is  reduced  to  the  lowest  point  of  degradation  ; 
he  may  state  such  circumstances,  as  from  the  facility  of  contradicting 
them,  may  force  ci'edit  from  a  jury,  and  would  it  be  unjust  or  illegal 
for  the  court  to  observe,  that  where  the  facts  sworn  to,  were  easy  to 
be  contradicted  if  false,  it  was  a  strong  circumstance  against  the 
prisoner,  that  he  had  produced  no  evidence  to  contradict  them  ;  that 
such  conduct  furnished  evidence  to  strengthen  the  credit  of  the 
witness. 

This  objection  was  made  for  the  first  time,  when  the  motion  came 
on  to  be  argued ;  it  is  not  stated  in  the  notice  that  there  was  any 
misdirection  ;  from  whence  it  might  be  conjectured,  that  it  had  not 
struck  the  counsel,  then,  that  there  was  any  ground  in  the  charge,  on 
which  the  verdict  could  be  attacked ;  two  very  able  counsel  spoke  to 
the  motion  for  the  defendant,  without  touching  upon  any  objection  to 
the  charge. 

And  the  learned  gentleman,  who  took  the  objection,  had  immediately 
after  the  verdict  came  in,  infoi'med  the  court,  that  his  client  would 
(if  the  court  thought  fit)  then  receive  the  sentence  of  the  court.  It  is 
hard  to  imagine,  that  if  that  counsel,  the  only  one  who  attacked  the 
charge,  then  thought  that  there  was  a  misdirection  in  the  court,  which 
would  have  intitled  his  client  to  set  aside  the  verdict ;  it  is  hard,  I 
say,  to  imagine  that  he  would  have  informed  the  court,  that  his  client 
was  willing  to  appear,  and  receive  judgment,  which,  if  the  court  had 
then  pronounced,  he  must  know,  would  have  shut  his  mouth  for  ever 
from  taking  any  advantage  of  any  misdirection  of  the  court,  if  any 
had  existed. 

I  think  there  has  been  no  misdirection,  and  therefore,  and  because 
I  think  the  other  grounds  stated,  are  insufficient  to  set  aside  the 
verdict,  I  think  the  motion  mvist  be  refused. 

Mr.  Attorney-General — My  lords,  it  is  my  duty  to  apply  to 
the  court  to  pronounce  sentence  upon  the  traverser. 

Mr.  Justice  Boyd. — Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  you  have  been 
found  guilty,  by  a  jury  of  your  country,  of  publishing  a  false,  wicked, 
and  seditious  libel,  of  and  concerning  the  government  and  constitution 
of  this  kingdom,  with  an  intent  to  excite  and  diffuse  among  the 
subjects,  discontents,  jealousies,  and  suspicions  of  the  king  and  his 
government ;  to  raise  dangerous  seditions  and  tumults  ;  to  throw 
the  government  of  this  country  into  scandal  and  disgrace  ;  to 
excite  the  people  to  make  alterations  in  the  government,  and  to 
overawe  and  to  intimidate  the  legislature  by  an  armed  force. 
This  charge  was  exhibited  in  an  information  filed  against  you 
by  his  Majesty's  Attorney- General,  and  the  whole  matter  was,  as 
it  ought  to  be,  left  to  the  jury,  who  have  found,  first,  that  the 
instrument  set  forth  is  a  libel ;  secondly,  that  you  did  publish  it ; 
thirdly,  that  you  published  it  with  the  intentions  stated  in  the  infor- 
mation. The  libel  is  contained  in  a  printed  paper,  intitled,  "  An 
Address  from  the  Society  of  United  Irishmen  at  Dublin,  to  the  Vo- 
lunteers  of  Ireland."     This   publication  followed  and  animadverted 


170  TRIAIi   OF 

upon  a  proclamation  published  by  order  of  the  lord  lieutenant  and 
council,  to  which  you  have  attributed  an  intention  to  create  internal 
commotion,  to  shake  the  public  credit,  and  to  blast  the  Volunteer 
honour.  This  proclamation  has  had  the  sanction  of  both  houses  of 
parliament.  At  this  period,  and  it  is  upon  the  records  of  parliament, 
the  great  body  of  the  Roman  Catholics  were  seeking  relief ;  they 
presented  dutiful  addresses,  stating  they  were  anxious  to  be  liberated 
from  restraints  they  laboured  under  ;  but  you  addressed  them  to  take 
up  arms,  and  by  force  to  obtain  their  measures  ;  they  were  palpably 
to  be  made  a  dupe  to  your  designs,  because  you  say  you  will  proceed 
to  the  accomplishment  of  your  beloved  principles — UNIVERSAL 
EMANCIPATION  and  REPRESENTATIVE  LEGISLATURE. 
Seduction,  calumny,  and  terror,  are  the  means  by  which  you  intend 
to  effect  them.  The  Volunteers  are  to  become  instruments  in  your 
hands,  and  despairing  to  seduce  the  army,  you  calumniate  them  with 
the  opprobrious  epithet  of  mei'cenaries.  You  say  seduction  made 
them  soldiers,  but  nature  made  them  men.  You  stigmatise  the  legal 
establishments  for  the  preservation  of  order,  as  a  notorious  police,  and 
the  militia,  the  pride  and  the  strength  of  the  kingdom,  are  to  be  looked 
upon  as  suspicious.  You  called  upon  the  people  to  arm — all  are  sum- 
moned to  arms  to  introduce  a  wild  system  of  anarchy,  such  as  now 
involves  France  in  the  horrors  of  civil  war,  and  deluges  the  country 
with  blood.  It  is  happy  for  you,  and  those  who  were  to  have  been 
your  instruments,  that  they  did  not  obey  you.  It  is  happy  for  you 
that  this  insidious  summons  to  arms  was  not  observed,  if  it  had,  and 
the  people  with  force  of  arms  had  attempted  to  make  alterations  in 
the  constitution  of  this  countiy,  every  man  concerned  would  have 
been  guilty  of  High  Treason. 

The  sentence  of  the  court  is — 

Mr.  Hamilton  Rowan. — My  lords,  I  am  perfectly  sensible  of  the 
forbearance  of  the  court  in  this  trial,  and  particularly  during  the 
arrangement  of  a  long  affidavit ;  I  hope  therefore  that  I  shall  be 
allowed  a  few  words,  either  in  mitigation,  or  in  whatever  other  cha- 
racter I  may  have  a  right  to  address  the  court,  before  they  pronounce 
their  sentence.  (Mr.  Justice  Boyd  desired  Mr.  Hamilton  Rowan  to 
proceed.)  I  need  not  apologise,  my  lords,  for  any  little  errors  I  may 
fall  into,  for  I  am  known  to  be  a  man  milearned  in  the  forms  of  these 
courts,  but  I  shall  as  plainly,  and  as  shortly  as  I  can,  state  every  thing 
as  it  struck  my  ear  and  understanding.  My  lord,  if  I  understood 
I'ightly,  the  three  heads  under  which  this  matter  has  been  argued 
are,  the  evidence,  the  jury,  and  the  sheriff;  I  did  hope  that  the 
objections  taken  to  these,  by  my  counsel,  would  have  set  aside  the 
verdict. 

There  are  some  parts  concerning  the  evidence,  in  which  the  court, 
as  well  as  the  prosecutor,  seem  to  have  been  mistaken.  They  have 
taken  it  for  gi'anted,  that  I  knew  the  person  who  was  to  be  bi'ought 
to  give  evidence  against  me  ;  and  it  was  asserted  by  the  bench,  that 
I  had  ransacked  Connaught  for  evidence  against  the  character  of 
Lyster.  I  do  not  know  what  impression  this  might  have  made  upon 
some  of  the  jury;  it  was  indeed  corrected  at  the  time,  but  it  was  not 
sufficiently  done  away  ;  it  is  plain  it  was  not,  for  Mr.  Solicitor- Ge- 
neral who  was  present  the  whole  time,  whose  duty  it  is,  and  whose 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON  ROWAN.  171 

inclination  he  declared  it  to  be,  to  listen  with  attention  and  deference 
to  every  thing  which  fell  from  the  bench,  has  since  repeated  the  same 
assertion.  I  certainly  did  suspect,  that  the  person  who  has  now  been 
brought  forward,  was  the  man  who  liad  lodged  the  informations 
against  me  ;  but  I  hoped  that  my  trial  had  been  postponed  by  the 
prosecutor,  from  a  knowledge  of  his  character,  and  a  wish  to  procure 
more  credible  testimony,  as  to  the  fact  of  the  distribution.  I  had  cer- 
tainly every  reason  to  suppose  this  had  been  the  case,  as  I  knew  that 
several  of  my  friends,  men  who  belong  to  the  old  Volunteer  corps, 
and  who  probably  were  at  that  meeting,  if  there  were  any  such 
assembly,  had  been  summoned  on  this  trial  by  the  prosecutor.  They 
attended  in  the  court,  but  were  never  called  upon.  Perhaps  I  am 
wrong  to  mention  this,  but  had  they  been  called  upon,  I  know  the 
charge  exhibited  against  me  by  Mr.  Lyster  w^ould  have  fallen  to  the 
ground  ;   I  had  been  certain  of  an  acquittal. 

As  to  the  jury,  my  lord,  I  can  conceive  some  of  them  to  have  been 
very  honourable  men,  and  yet  prejudiced,  much  prejudiced  ;  I  did 
not  conceive  however,  that  any  man  would  have  gone  into  that  box, 
taking  an  oath  to  try  me  impartially,  yet  having  publicly  declared  an 
enmity  against  me.  It  was  certainly  very  ingenious  in  one  of  the 
crown  lawyers  to  suppose,  that  the  jurors  who  used  those  expressions, 
might  have  thought  at  that  time,  that  I  had  been  guilty  of  murder, 
or  some  heinous  crime,  and  had  been  disabused  before  the  trial  came 
on,  but,  without  recurring  to  my  general  character,  that  suggestion, 
in  my  opinion,  falls  to  the  ground,  for  the  conversation  was  on  the 
subject  of  the  Volunteers  ;  and  it  is  for  an  address  to  the  Volunteers 
that  I  am  now  prosecuted  ;  I  certainly  did  wish  for  a  revival  of  the 
Volunteers,  and  I  did  attempt  it ;  I  thought  they  had  already  done 
honor  to  the  nation,  that  they  had  been  acknowledged  honourable  by 
the  legislature ;  this  I  did  attempt,  if  this  be  a  crime.  It  has  been 
said  by  one  of  my  prosecutors,  that  it  was  not  with  the  jurors,  but 
with  their  verdict  that  I  was  discontented  ;  I  ask,  what  was  my  con- 
duct when  the  verdict  was  delivered  in  ?  Did  that  prove  a  mere 
discontent  against  the  verdict  ?  No.  I  thought  it  a  severe  one, 
unfounded  in  evidence,  but  I  called  for  the  sentence  of  the  court ;  I 
was  ready  to  abide  by  that  sentence  ;  and  it  was  not  until  my  return 
to  Newgate,  when  I  found  my  prison  doors  cro"ivded  with  utter 
strangers  to  me,  each  recapitulating  instances  of  declared  partiality  in 
the  jurors,  and  further  acts  of  infamy  in  the  evidence,  that  I  had 
thouohts  of  setting  aside  their  verdict. 

As  to  the  sheriff,  and  the  circumstance  of  my  not  having  made  some 
application  to  the  court  prior  to  my  affidavit  of  the  day  before  yesterday, 
and  the  question  of,  when  I  became  acquainted  with  his  partiality,  the 
fact  is,  that  it  was  with  the  utmost  reluctance  I  now  stood  forward,  to 
accuse  a  man  of  what  must,  in  my  opinion,  render  him  infamous.  I 
well  knew  that  in  every  public  act  of  my  life  since  I  came  to  this 
country,  trifling  as  they  were,  I  had  been  calumniated  by  him  ;  but 
that  was  in  his  province  of  editor  ;  he  is  now  become  the  representative 
of  the  executive  power — is  he  not  ?  I  thought  the  station  he  now 
holds,  would  give  him  some  pride,  instil  some  spark  of  honour  into 
him,  and  that,  relinquishing  that  conduct  and  those  proceedings  which 
were  calculated  to  procure  a  sale  for  his  journal,  in  some  corners  of 


172  TRIAL,   OF 

the  city,  he  would  consider  himself  bound  to  return  a  jury  which 
should  be  unsuspected.     Was  it  likely  that  he  did  not  know  of  these 
declarations  of  the  jurors  ?     It  is  not  probable.     Before  the  recog- 
nizances were  given  up,  while  I  was  out  on  bail,  the  death  of  a  near 
relation    obliged  me  to  go  to   England,   where  my  attendance  was 
necessary  for  the  arrangement  of  my  private  affairs  ;  I  returned  how- 
ever at  great  inconvenience,   and  some  pecuniary  loss,  to  attend  this 
court ;  yet,  during  my  absence,  I  was  branded  by  this  man  as  a  fugitive ; 
and  here  permit  me  to  observe,  that  your  lordship,  in  your  recapitula- 
tion of  the  events  of  this  trial,  omitted  to  mention  the  motion  made  for 
me  by  my  friend,  Mr.  Blennerhasset,  that  the  examinations  against  me 
should  be  forthwith  returned  :  Day  after  day  I  had  attended  the  court ; 
the  little  enquiry  I  could  make,  informed  me  that  no  such  examination 
had  gone  up  to  the  grand  jury,  I  believe  it  was  on  the  last  day  of  the 
term,  or  it  was  not  motion  day,  or  something  of  that  kind,  and  there 
was  no  order  of  the  court  made.     It  had  been  suggested  to  me  by  some 
of  my  friends,  when  notice  for  this  trial  was  served  upon  me,  that  I 
ought  to  attempt  to  put  it  otf ;  but  what  would  have  been  the  conse- 
quence ?     Your  lordship  has  said,   that  I  had  called  for,  that  I  had 
provoked  this  trial,  that  I  had  complained  it  was  not  brought  forward  ; 
it  is  true,  I  did  call  for,  I  did  provoke  this  trial ;  I  have  complained 
that  it  was  not  brought  forward.     I  wished  to  be  brought  to  trial,  but 
I  did  wish  also  to  be  tried  by  an  impartial  jury,  summoned   by  an 
impartial  man  ;  such  I  thought  the  sherili'of  that  time*  to  be,  although 
I  was  not  one  of  his  acquaintance.     The  very  words  your  lordship 
used,  show  why  I  did  not  put  off  my  trial.     What  would  then  have 
been  said  by  that  Journal,  which  is  perpetually  stigmatizing  my  conduct 
and  vilifying  my  private  character  ?     It  would  have  repeated,  what 
was  said  in  another  country,  that  I  was  "  an  infamous  wretch,  who  had 
fled  from  the  punishment  that  awaited  me."  f     But  still  those  friends 
urged  me  to  put  oil"  this  trial :    The   sheriff  is  your  enemy — Xo — I 
have  called  for  trial,  I  will  trust  to  his  oath  of  office  :  though  as  editor 
of  a  newspaper,  he  has  acted  thus,  yet  when  bound  by  oath  "  to  return 
pannels  of  persons  able  and  sufficient,  and  not  suspected  or  procured, 
and  to  do  justice  impartially,"  (these  ai'e  merely  the  words  of  the  oath 
of  a  county  sheriff,)  I  hoped  he  would  rise  superior  to  his  editorial 
capacity,  and  act  with  justice.     Nay,  even  in  my  first  affidavit,  I  did 
not  throw  out  this  imputation.     As  to  the  sub-sheriff,  I  know  him  not, 
but  I  am  informed  that  the  sheriff  himself  I'eturned  the  whole  pannel 
upon  this  occasion  ;  contrary  to  the  usiuil  custom,  as  I  am  informed : 
Why  this  was  so,  I  know  not ;  I  cannot  dive  into  the  breast  of  any 
man :  God  forbid  I  should  be  capable  of  diving  into  his.     My  lord, 
perhaps  what  I  am  going  to  observe  may  be  improper,  but  I  once 
thought  that,  intention  constituted  guilt ;  I  thought  I  heard  from  the 
bench,  that  my  intention  did  not  signify. 

Lord  Clonmel You  have  said  nothing  improper  yet.   Sir  :   go 

on,  you  do  not  seem  to  recollect  the  idea  perfectly. 

Mr.  Hamilton  Rowan. — It  was  not  from  your  lordship. 

*  Henry  Hutton,  Esq. 

t  Vide  the  liOrd  Advocate's  speech  on  Mr.  Muir's  trial,  printed  by  Robertson, 
"dinburgli. 


ARCHIBALD   HAMILTON  ROWAN.  173 

Mr.  Justice  Downes Certainly  it  is  an  opinion  no  judge  could 

hold. 

Mr.  Hamilton  Rowan I  have  been  mistaken  then,  it  was  some- 
thing like  it,  it  struck  me  so.  As  to  the  paper  it  has  been  said  to  come 
from  a  Society  of  United  Irishmen.  One  of  my  witnesses  was  asked 
was  he  an  United  Irishman  ?  I  have  heard  much  of  United  Irishmen, 
much  calumny  here  and  elsewhere  ;  I  avow  myself  to  be  one,  my  name 
has  appeared  to  several  of  their  publications,  I  glory  in  the  name.  On 
entering  that  society  I  took  a  test,  by  which  I  am  bound  to  seek  for 
the  emancipation  of  every  class  of  my  fellow-citizens,  and  to  pi'ocure, 
by  spreading  information,  (for  that  is  the  only  mode  a  few  men 
assembled  in  Back-lane  can  adopt)  a  reform  in  the  representation  of 
the  people*  :  a  reform,  the  necessity  of  which  has  been  allowed  even 
in  parliament.  These  are  our  objects,  objects  which  I  am  bound  to 
pursue  to  their  completion.  As  to  the  paper,  I  honour  the  head  that 
conceived  it,  and  I  love  the  hand  that  penned  it.  Much  stress  has 
been  laid  upon  the  words  UNIVERSAL  EMANCIPATION  and 
REPRESENTATIVE  LEGISLATURE;  it  may  be  owing  to  a 
want  of  logical  precision  in  me,  but  I  do  not  consider  these  words  as 
carrying  the  meaning  which  has  been  imputed  to  them.  I  did  imagine 
that  the  British  constitution  was  a  representative  legislature,  that 
the  people  were  represented  by  the  house  of  commons  :  that  the 
lords  represented  the  territory,  the  property  ;  and  that  the  king 
represented  the  power  of  the  state,  the  united  force,  the  power  of  the 
whole,  placed  in  his  hands  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole.  As  a  person, 
as  a  man,  I  know  nothing  of  the  king  ;  I  can  know  nothing  of  him, 
except  as  wielding  the  force  of  the  nation,  to  be  exercised  for  the 
benefit  of  the  nation  ;|  and  if  ever  that  force  should  be  misapplied  or 
abused,  it  then  remains  for  the  people  to  decide  in  what  hands  it 
ought  to  be  placed.:|: 

I  really  feel  myself  in  an  awkward  situation,  thus  declaring  my 
sentiments,  seeing  intentions  different  from  those  both  of  the  author 
and  myself  are  fixed  upon  that  paper,  for  the  distribution  of  which  I 
am  persecuted.  From  my  situation,  however,  having  an  independent 
fortune,  easy  in  my  cii'cumstances,  and  with  a  large  family,  insurrec- 

*  It  being  the  interest  as  well  as  the  intention  of  the  people  to  have  a  fair  and 
equal  representation,  whoever  brings  it  nearest  to  that,  is  an  undoubted  friend  to 
and  establisher  of  the  government,  and  cannot  miss  the  consent  and  approbation  of 
the  community. .^Zoc^e  on  Government,  sec.  158. 

f  But  yet  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  although  oaths  of  allegiance  and  fealty  are 
taken  to  him  (the  king),  it  is  not  to  him,  as  supreme  legislator,  but  as  supreme 
executor  of  the  law,  made  by  a  joint  power  of  him  with  others  ;  allegiance  being 
nothing  but  an  obedience  according  to  law,  which,  when  he  violates,  he  has  no 
right  to  obedience,  nor  can  claim  it  otherwise  than  as  ihe  public  person  vested  with 
the  power  of  the  law,  and  so  is  to  be  considei-ed  as  the  image,  phantom,  or  reprC' 
sentative  of  the  commonwealth,  acted  by  the  will  of  society,  declared  in  its  laws  ; 
and  then  he  has  no  will,  no  power  but  that  of  the  law.  But  when  he  quits  this 
representation,  this  public  will,  and  acts  by  his  own  private  will,  he  degrades  him- 
self, and  is  but  a  single  private  person,  without  power,  and  without  will,  that  has 
any  right  to  obedience  ;  the  members  owing  no  obedience  but  to  the  public  will  of 
the  society. — Locke  on  Government,  sec.  131. 

J  When  king  Charles's  deluded  brother  attempted  to  enslave  the  nation,  he  found 
it  was  beyond  his  power  :  The  people  both  could  and  did  resist  him ;  and  in  con- 
sequence of  such  resistance,  obliged  him  to  quit  his  enterprize  and  his  throne 
together. — Blarhfttmie,  Public  Wronf/s,  b.  4,  c.  33,  f.  5. 


174  TRIAL    OF 

tion  of  any  sort  would  surely  be  the  last  thing  I  could  wish  for.  I  ask 
no  favour,  but  I  submit  myself  to  the  clemency  and  the  justice  of  the 
court,  and  I  trust  that  whatever  may  be  their  sentence,  I  shall  bear  it 
with  becoming  fortitude. 

Lord  Clonmel — I  have  conferred  with  my  brethren  upon  what 
has  fallen  from  you,  confessedly  in  mitigation  and  with  that  view. 
There  are  two  facts  you  seem  to  insist  upon  as  new.  If  it  made  for 
you,  that  Mr.  Hasset  made  the  motion  you  state,  I  willingly  adopt  it. 
If  I  had  known  it  in  giving  the  histoiy  of  this  case,  I  should  not  have 
omitted  that  or  anyting  else  done  in  this  court.  You  mentioned  that 
the  informations  should  have  been  returned,  they  were  i^eturned  into 
the  crown  office. 

Mr.  RowAiv My  Lord,   I  meant  they  were  not  returned  to  the 

grand  jury. 

Lord  CiiONMEL. — The  proceeding  was  not  by  way  of  Bill  of  Indict- 
ment, therefore  what  you  desire  could  not  have  been  adopted.  The 
proceedings  here  were  by  information  ex-qfficio,  and  when  the  infor- 
mations were  lodged'  in  the  crown  office,  which  I  am  instructed  to  say, 
was  the  first  day  of  Hilary  Term,  1793,  the  first  day  the  court  sat 
afterwards,  the  information  was  filed  and  the  other  proceedings  had. 
There  is  nothing  else  that  has  not  been  touched  upon.  As  to  the 
meaning  of  the  libel,  I  owe  justice  to  every  man,  and  here  and  every 
where  I  have  said,  that  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from  any  construc- 
tion in  your  favour  that  was  omitted.  I  think  I  will  be  justified  in 
saying,  that  you  were  well  and  ably  defended  by  your  counsel. 
Nothing  has  fallen  from  you  that  affected  the  minds  of  the  covirt  in 
mitigation,  to  change  the  judgment  which  we  have  thought  proper 
should  be  pronounced  upon  you.  I  shall  not  adopt  any  idea,  or  suffer  any 
idea  to  arise  in  my  mind,  from  what  you  last  let  faU  from  you,  to 
in<;'rease  that  punishment.  The  judgment  of  this  court  will  therefore 
be  pronounced,  as  is  the  practice  in  Westminster  Hall,  by  the  second 
judge  of  the  court.     It  shall  be  pronounced  by  my  bi'Other  Boyd. 

Mr.  Justice  Boyd — The  sentence  of  the  court  is — That  you, 
Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  do  pay  to  his  Majesty  a  fine  of  Five 
Hundred  Pounds,  and  be  imprisoned  for  two  years,  to  be  computed 
from  the  29th  of  January,  1794,  and  until  that  fine  be  paid  ;  and  to 
find  security  for  your  good  behaviour  for  seven  years,  yourself  in  the 
sum  of  Two  Thousand  Pounds,  and  two  sureties  in  One  Thousand 
Pounds  each. 


The  following  illustrative  dialogue  is  found  in  the  Autobiography 
of  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  edited  by  Dr.  Drummond,  p.  207  : 

"  I  had  not  been  long  imprisoned  when  the  following  conversation  took 
place  between  Lord  Clonmel  and  Mr.  Byrne,  printer,  on  his  advertis- 
ing my  trial  for  publication,  in  1793.  I  should  remark,  that  he  gave 
me  the  conversation  in  his  own  hand-writing  : — 

Lord  Clonmel, — "  Your  servant,  Mr.  Byrne  ;  I  perceive  you  have 
advertised  Mr.  Rowan's  trial." 


ARCHIBALD  HAMILTON   ROWAN.  175 

Byrne. — "  The  advertisement,  my  Lord,  is  Mr.  Rowan's ;  he  has 
selected  me  as  his  publisher,  which  I  think  an  honour,  and  I  hope  it 
will  be  pi-ofitable." 

Lord  Clonmel. — "  Take  care.  Sir,  what  you  do ;  I  give  you  this 
caution  ;  for  if  there  are  any  reflections  on  the  judges  of  the  land,  by 
the  eternal  G —  I  will  lay  you  by  the  heels !" 

Byrne "  I  have  many  thanks  to  return  your  Lordship  for  your 

caution  ;  I  have  many  opportunities  of  going  to  Newgate,  but  I  have 
never  been  ambitious  of  that  honour,  and  I  hope  in  this  case  to  stand 
in  the  same  way.  Your  Lordship  knows  I  have  but  one  principle  in 
trade,  which  is  to  make  money  of  it,  and  that  if  there  be  two  publica- 
tions giving  different  features  to  the  trial  I  would  publish  both. 
There  is  a  trial  published  by  M'Kenzie." 

Lord  Clonmel. — "  I  did  not  know  that ;  but  say  what  you  may  on 
the  subject,  if  you  print  or  publish  what  may  inflame  the  mob,  it 
behoves  the  judges  of  the  land  to  notice  it;  and  I  tell  you,  by  the 
eternal  G- — ,  if  you  publish  or  mis-state  my  expressions,  I  will  lay  you 
by  the  heels  !  One  of  Mr.  Rowan's  advocates  set  out  with  an  inflam- 
matory speech,  mis-stating  what  I  said,  and  stating  what  I  did  not 
say.  I  immediately  denied  it,  and  appealed  to  the  court  and  the 
gentlemen  in  it,  and  they  all  contradicted  him  as  well  as  myself. 
These  speeches  were  made  for  the  mob,  to  mislead  and  inflame  them, 
which  I  feel  my  duty  to  curb.  If  the  publication  is  intended  to  abuse 
me,  I  don't  value  it ;  I  have  been  so  long  in  the  habit  of  receiving 
abuse,  that  it  will  avail  little  ;  but  I  caution  you  how  you  publish  it ; 
for  if  I  find  anything  reflecting  on  or  mis-stating  me,  I  will  take  care 
of  you." 

Byrne "  I  should  hope  Mr.  Rowan  has  too  much  honour  to  have 

anything  mis-stated  or  inserted  in  his  trial  that  would  involve  his 
publisher." 

Lord  Clonmel — "  Wliat !  is  Mr.  Rowan  preparing  his  own  trial  ?" 

Byrne "  He  is,  my  Lord." 

Lord  Clonmel. — "  Oho !  oho !  that  is  a  different  thing.  That 
gentleman  would  not  have  been  better  used  by  me,  standing  in  the 
situation  he  did,  if  he  was  one  of  the  princes  of  the  blood." 

Byrne. — "  My  Lord,  Mr.  Rowan  being  his  own  printer,  you  know 
he  will  publish  his  own  trial ;  I  stand  only  as  his  publisher." 

Lord  Clonmel "  Even  as  his  publisher,  I  will  take  care  of  you  ; 

and  I  have  no  objection  of  this  being  known." 

Byrne "  I  return  your  Lordship  many  thanks." 


/ 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON, 


The  following  notice  of  the  Rev.  William  Jackson,  from  Walker's 
Hibernian  Magazine,  (May,  1795),  is  very  meagre  and  unsatisfactory. 
It  is,  however,  from  contemporary  authority,  and  contains  probably  as 
much  as  we  now  require  to  know  of  a  man,  who  played  so  rash  and 
unsuccessful  a  game  in  the  politics  of  our  country.  Rash  and 
unsuccessful,  however,  as  his  conduct  was,  his  mission  to  Ireland  was 
very  important  in  one  point  of  view.  It  indicated  the  quarter  from 
which  Irish  disaffection  might  hope  for  aid  and  encouragement ;  and 
though  he  was  not  the  first  who  came  to  Ireland  to  tender  French 
assistance,  his  were  the  first  offers  of  which  the  people  of  Ireland 
became  aware,  through  the  events  of  his  singular  and  most  tragic 
trial. 

"  This  unfortunate  man  having  been  convicted  by  a  jury  of  his 
countrymen,  of  an  offence  of  so  unpardonable  a  nature  as  high  treason, 
would,  most  undoubtedly,  have  suffered  the  sentence  which  the  law 
pronounces  on  so  henious  a  crime,  had  it  not  been  for  the  sudden  and 
premature  manner  of  his  dissolution ;  upon  the  true  cause  of  which 
doubts  have  arisen,  even  in  the  minds  of  medical  men.  His  melancholy 
catastrophe,  and  the  crime  for  which  he  was  found  guilty  having  been 
so  uncommon  in  this  country,  (no  person  having  been  indicted  for  it 
for  upwards  of  a  century),  have  justly  drawn  the  attention  of  the 
community,  in  a  very  ample  degree,  on  this  wretched  and  unfortunate 
man.  Our  desire  to  gratify  the  curiosity  of  the  public,  has  induced 
us  to  procure  such  information  respecting  his  origin,  and  progress 
through  life,  as  we  thought  would  be  acceptable,  and  which  we  shall 
now  lay  before  them. 

"  The  family  of  this  man  was  very  respectable  in  this  country.  His 
father  was  many  years  a  proctor,  and  officiated  in  the  prerogative 
court  in  Dublin,  and  maintained  a  most  excellent  character.  His 
mother  was  the  daughter  of  Colonel  Gore,  of  the  county  Sligo.  He 
was  the  youngest  of  four  sons,  the  eldest  of  whom  was  Dr.  Richard 
Jackson,  an  eminent  civilian,  vicar-general  to  the  late  archbishop  of 
Cashel,  and  an  intimate  friend  of  those  respectable  characters, 
the  late  Dr.  Ratcliffe,  and  the  Right  Hon.  Philip  Tisdall.  At  an  early 
age  he  was  sent  to  the  University  of  Oxford,  where  he  made  a  rapid 
proficiency  in  all  branches  of  scientific  and  classical  knowledge,  and 


178  MEMOIR    OF 

here  he  commenced  a  friendship  with  the  Harvey  family,  which 
remained  unbroken  for  a  long  period  of  time.  Having  entered  into 
the  service  of  the  church,  the  Earl  of  Bristol  took  him  into  his  house 
as  his  private  chaplain,  with  a  handsome  salary  annexed  ;  his  circum- 
stances about  this  time  having  become  much  straitened. 

"  On  the  appointment  of  the  Earl  of  Bristol  to  the  Lord  Lieutenancy 
of  this  kingdom,  a  prospect  seemed  to  dawn  on  Mr.  Jackson,  which 
promised  to  make  his  future  situation  in  life  independent.  The  Earl 
sent  him  here  as  his  private  secretary,  with  a  recommendation  to  the 
Hon.  Barry  Maxwell,  now  Earl  of  Faniham,  in  whose  house  he  resided 
for  six  months,  universally  loved  and  admired  for  his  amiable  and 
prepossessing  qualities,  his  rectitude  of  conduct,  and  pleasing  conver- 
sation. Unfortunately  for  him,  however,  his  lordship  resigned  the 
viceroyalty  without  once  visiting  the  seat  of  his  government,  and 
Jackson,  whom  if  his  lordship  came  into  Ireland,  would  undoubtedly 
have  been  promoted  to  a  bishopric,  and  might  probably  be  now,  not 
lying  in  his  gi'ave  convicted  of  high  treason,  but  presiding,  a  dignified 
ornament  to  the  Established  Church  of  this  kingdom,  returned  to 
England  to  his  former  humble  station  of  private  chaplain  to  his 
patron. 

"  He  was  now  obliged  to  look  to  his  own  acquirements  and  literary 
abilities,  to  enable  him  to  indulge  in  those  luxuries  which  he  had  been 
used  to,  and  could  not  now  do  without,  he  accordingly  commenced  a 
party  writer  against  the  then  ministry.  His  pamphlets  acquired  a 
great  deal  of  celebrity  in  the  political  world,  and  even  introduced  him 
to  the  notice  of  the  late  Earl  of  Chatham,  who  promised  to  provide 
for  him  ;  but  it  unluckily  happened  that  it  was  Jackson's  fate  to  meet 
with  nothing  but  promises  from  the  great,  that  always  turned  out 
abortive  to  him. 

"  He  pursued  this  line  of  conduct  for  a  number  of  years  in  London 
well  known  as  an  author  by  the  name  of  Parson  Jackson,  but  without 
ever  rising  in  his  circumstances  above  mediocrity,  although  it  might 
have  been  expected  from  the  connexions  he  had  with  the  family  of 
the  noble  Earl  already  mentioned,  and,  through  that  connexion,  with 
the  Duchess  of  Kingston,  he  might  have  acquired  a  permanency  for 
the  remainder  of  his  life. 

"  This  celebrated  lady  last  mentioned,  was  very  much  attached  to 
Mr.  Jackson,  and  made  him  her  confidant  and  secretary  during  her 
remarkable  trial,  in  the  House  of  Lords  of  England,  for  bigamy.  He 
wrote  the  famous  letters  that  were  published  in  the  newspapers  in  her 
contest  with  that  Aristophanes  of  his  age,  the  late  Samuel  Foote. 

"  To  enter  into  a  detail  of  the  many  vicissitudes  of  life  he  went 
through  in  the  course  of  his  literary  labours,  would  exceed  the  bounds 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  179 

we  are  necessarily  prescribed  to;  we  shall,  therefore,  not  trespass 
further  on  the  reader's  patience,  but  refer  to  the  trial,  and  conclude, 
by  giving  some  particulars  of  the  manner  of  his  death,  and  the  circum- 
stances attending  it. 

"  On  the  30th  of  April,  being  brought  up  to  court  to  receive 
j  udgment,  his  counsel  moved  an  arrest  of  it,  grounded  on  some  infor- 
mality in  the  indictment,  and  also  some  other  trifling  matters,  which, 
however,  after  being  replied  to  by  the  Attorney- General,  the  court 
did  not  seem  to  think  of  moment  sufficient  to  countenance  this  motion. 
During  the  course  of  the  different  opinions  being  delivered,  the  prisoner 
appeared  to  be  extremely  ill,  and  verging  to  a  state  of  total  insensibility, 
and  upon  Lord  Clonmel's  proceeding  to  pronounce  judgment,  he  was 
entirely  so  ;  his  lordship  then  gave  orders  that  he  should  be  brought 
back  to  prison  until  further  orders.  However,  in  the  course  of  a  few 
minutes  more  he  was  reported  to  be  dead.  His  body  Avas  not  I'emoved 
from  its  position  in  the  dock  until  the  next  morning,  when  an  inquisi- 
tion was  held  on  it ;  and  the  body  being  opened  by  Surgeons  Hume 
and  Adrien,  the  jury  brought  in  their  verdict,  that  '  his  death  was 
occasioned  by  some  acrid  and  mortal  matter  taken  into  the  stomach  ; 
but  how,  or  by  whom  administered,  they  did  not  know.'  " 

The  account  of  Mr.  Jackson  is  more  full  in  Curran's  Life,  by  his 
Son ;  and  it  is  peculiarly  interesting  from  the  fact  stated  by  Dr.  Madden, 
in  his  Lives  of  the  United  Irishmen,  that  it  was  the  casual  perusal  of 
a  critique  on  this  Avork,  in  the  Edinburgh  Review,  that  induced  Lord 
Holland  to  prepare  and  introduce  a  bill  for  a  change  in  the  law  of 
treason  as  applicable  to  this  country.  Previous  to  this  act,  the  1st  and 
2nd  Geo.  IV.,  c.  24,  it  was  held  by  the  judges  in  Ireland,  that  one 
Avitness  was  sufficient  to  convict,  in  this  country,  of  high  treason.  The 
very  salutary  protection  of  a  second  Avitness,  Avas  extended  by  Lord 
Holland's  act.  The  folloAving  is  the  account  giA-en  of  Mr.  Jackson's 
trial  by  the  biographer  of  Curran  : — 

"  The  next  state  trial  of  importance  in  Avhich  Mr.  Curran  Avas  engaged 
Avas  that  of  Mr.  William  .lackson,  a  case  of  Avhich  some  of  the  attend- 
ing circumstances  AAere  in  a  high  degree  singular  and  affecting. 

"  Mr.  Jackson  was  a  clergyman  of  the  Established  Church  ;  he  Avas 
a  native  of  Ireland,  but  he  had  for  several  years  resided  out  of  that 
country.  He  spent  a  part  of  his  life  in  the  family  of  the  noted 
Duchess  of  Kingston,  and  is  said  to  have  been  the  person  who  con- 
ducted that  lady's  controA'ersy  with  the  celebrated  Foote.*     At  the 

*  Foote,  at  the  close  of  his  letter  to  her  Grace,  observes  :  "  Pray,  madam,  is  not 
-n  the  name  of  your  female  confidential  secretary  ?"  and  afterwards,  "  That 


you  may  never  want  the  benefit  of  clergy  in  every  emergency,  is  the  wish  of 

Yours,"  &c. 


1 80  MEMOIR  OF 

period  of  the  Frencli  Revolution  lie  passed  over  to  Paris,  where  he 
formed  political  connexions  with  the  constituted  authorities.  From 
France  he  returned  to  London,  in  1794,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring 
information  as  to  the  practicability  of  an  invasion  of  England,  and  was 
thence  to  proceed  to  Ireland  on  a  similar  mission.  Upon  his  arrival 
in  London,  he  renewed  an  intimacy  with  a  person  named  Cockayne, 
who  had  formerly  been  his  friend  and  confidential  attorney.  The 
extent  of  his  communications,  in  the  first  instance,  to  Cockayne,  did 
not  exactly  appear  ;  the  latter,  however,  was  prevailed  upon  to  write 
the  directions  of  several  of  Jackson's  letters,  containing  treasonable 
matters,  to  his  correspondents  abroad  :  but  in  a  little  time,  either 
suspecting  or  repenting  that  he  had  been  furnishing  evidence  of  treason 
ao-ainst  himself,  he  revealed  to  the  British  minister,  Mr.  Pitt,  all  that 
he  knew  or  conjectured  relative  to  Jackson's  objects.  By  the  desire 
of  Mr.  Pitt,  Cockayne  accompanied  Jackson  to  Ireland,  to  watch  and 
defeat  his  designs  ;  and  as  soon  as  the  evidence  of  his  treason  was 
mature,  announced  himself  as  a  witness  for  the  crown.  Mr.  Jackson  was 
accordingly  arrested,  and  committed  to  stand  his  trial  for  high  treason. 
"  Mr.  Jackson  was  committed  to  prison  in  April,  1794,  but  his 
trial  was  delayed,  by  successive  adjournments,  till  the  same  month  in 
the  following  year.  In  the  interval,  he  wrote  and  published  a  refuta- 
tion of  Paine's  Age  of  Reason,  probably  in  the  hope  that  it  might  be 
accepted  as  an  atonement.*  He  was  convicted,  and  brought  up  for 
judgment  on  the  30th  of  April,  1795. 

•  Examples  of  honourable  conduct,  no  matter  by  whom  displayed,  are  heard  with 
pleasure  by  every  friend  to  human  nature.  Of  such,  a  very  rare  instance  was 
given  by  this  gentleman  during  his  imprisonment.  For  the  whole  of  that  period 
he  was  treated  with  every  possible  indulgence ;  a  fact  so  creditable  to  the  Irish 
government,  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  suppress  it.  Among  the  other  acts  of 
lenity  extended  to  him,  was  a  permission  to  enjoy  the  society  of  his  friends.  A 
short  time  before  his  trial,  one  of  these  remained  with  him  to  a  late  hour  of  the 
uight :  when  he  was  about  to  depart,  Mr.  Jackson  accompanied  him  as  far  as  the 
place  where  the  gaoler  usually  waited  upon  such  occasions,  until  all  his  prisoners' 
visitors  should  have  retired.  They  found  the  gaoler  in  a  profound  sleep,  and  the 
keys  of  the  prison  lying  beside  him.  "  Poor  fellow  !"  said  Mr.  Jackson,  taking  up 
the  keys,  "  let  us  not  disturb  him  ;  I  have  already  been  too  troublesome  to  him  in 
this  way."  He  proceeded  with  his  friend  to  the  outer  door  of  the  prison,  which  he 
opened.  Here  the  facility  of  escaping  naturally  struck  him, — he  became  deeply 
agitated ;  but  after  a  moment's  pause,  "  /  could  do  it,"  said  he.  "  but  what  would 
be  the  consequences  to  you,  and  to  the  poor  fellow  who  has  been  so  kind  to  me  ? 
No!  let  me  rather  meet  my  fate."  He  said  no  more,  but  locking  the  prison  door 
again,  returned  to  his  apartment.  It  should  be  added,  that  the  gentleman,  out  of 
consideration  for  whom  such  an  opportunity  was  sacrificed,  gave  a  proof  upon  this 
occasion  that  he  deserved  it.  He  was  fully  aware  of  the  legal  consequences  of 
aiding  in  the  escape  of  a  prisoner  committed  under  a  charge  of  high  treason,  and 
felt  that,  in  the  present  instance,  it  would  have  been  utterly  impossible  for  him  to 
disprove  the  circumstantial  evidence  that  would  have  appeared  against  him  ;  yet 
he  never  uttered  a  syllable  to  dissuade  his  unfortunate  friend.  He,  however,  con- 
sidered the  temptation  to  be  so  irresistible,  that,  expecting  to  find  the  prisoner, 
upon  farther  refiection,  availing  himself  of  it,  he  remained  all  night  outside  the 
prison  door,  with  the  intention,  if  Mr.  Jackson  should  escape,  of  instantly  flying 
from  Ireland, 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  181 

"  It  is  at  this  stage  of  tlie  proceedings  that  the  case  of  Jackson 
becomes  terribly  peculiar.  Never,  perhaps,  did  a  British  covut  of 
justice  exhibit  a  spectacle  of  such  appalling  interest  as  was  witnessed 
by  the  King's  Bench  of  Ireland  upon  the  day  that  this  unfortunate 
gentleman  was  summoned  to  hear  his  fate  pronounced.  He  had  a  day 
or  two  before  made  some  allusions  to  the  subject  of  suicide.  In  a 
conversation  with  his  counsel  in  the  prison,  he  had  observed  to  them, 
that  his  food  was  always  cut  in  pieces  before  it  was  brought  to  him, 
the  gaoler  not  venturing  to  trust  him  with  a  knife  or  fork.  This 
precaution  he  ridiculed,  and  observed,  '  that  the  man  Avho  feared  not 
death,  could  never  w^ant  the  means  of  dying,  and  that  as  long  as  his 
head  was  within  reach  of  the  prison- wall,  he  could  prevent  his  body's 
being  suspended  to  scare  the  community.'  At  the  moment,  they 
regarded  this  as  a  mere  casual  ebullition,  and  did  not  give  it  much 
attention. 

"  On  the  morning  of  the  30th  of  April,  as  one  of  these  gentlemen  was 
proceeding  to  com-t,  he  met  in  the  streets  a  person  warmly  attached 
to  the  government  of  the  day.  The  circumstance  is  trivial,  but  it 
marks  the  party  spirit  that  prevailed,  and  the  manner  in  w^hich  it  was 
sometimes  expressed :  '  I  have  (said  he)  just  seen  your  client,  Jackson, 
pass  by  on  his  way  to  the  King's  Bench  to  receive  sentence  of  death. 
I  always  said  he  was  a  coward,  and  I  find  I  was  not  mistaken  ;  his 
fears  have  made  him  sick — as  the  coach  drove  by,  I  observed  him, 
with  his  head  out  of  the  window,  vomiting  violently.'  The  other 
hurried  on  to  the  coui't,  w^here  he  found  his  client  supporting  himself 
against  the  dock.  His  frame  w-as  in  a  state  of  violent  perturbation, 
but  his  mind  was  still  collected.  He  beckoned  to  his  counsel  to 
approach  him,  and  making  an  effort  to  squeeze  him  with  his  damp 
and  nerveless  hand,  uttered  in  a  whisper,  and  with  a  smile  of  mournful 
triumph,  the  dying  words  of  Pierre, 

"  We  have  deceived  the  senate." 

"  The  prisoner's  counsel  having  detected  what  they  conceived  to  be 
a  legal  informality  in  the  proceedings,  intended  to  make  a  motion  in 
arrest  of  his  judgment ;  but  it  would  have  been  irregular  to  do  so 
until  the  counsel  for  the  crown,  who  had  not  yet  appeared,  should  first 
pray  the  judgment  of  the  coiirt  upon  him.  During  this  interval,  the 
violence  of  the  prisoner's  indisposition  momentarily  increased,  and  the 
chief-justice,  Lord  Clonmel,  was  speaking  of  remanding  him,  when 
the  attorney-general  came  in,  and  called  upon  the  court  to  pronounce 
judgment  upon  him.  Accordingly,  'the  Rev.  "William  Jackson  was 
set  forward,'  and  presented  a  spectacle  equally  shocking  and  affecting. 
His  body  was  in  a  state  of  profuse  perspiration  ;  when  his  hat  was 


182  MEMOIR  OF 

removed,  a  dense  steam  was  seen  to  ascend  from  his  head  and  temples ; 
minute  and  irreguhir  movements  of  convulsion  were  passing  to  and 
fro  upon  his  countenance  ;  his  eyes  were  nearly  closed,  and,  when  at 
intervals  they  opened,  discovered  by  the  glare  of  death  upon  them, 
that  the  hour  of  dissolution  Avas  at  hand.  When  called  on  to  stand 
up  before  the  court,  he  collected  the  remnant  of  his  force  to  hold 
himself  erect ;  but  the  attempt  was  tottering  and  imperfect :  he  stood 
rocking  from  side  to  side,  with  his  arms,  in  the  attitude  of  firmness, 
crossed  over  his  breast,  and  his  countenance  strained  by  a  last  proud 
effort,  into  an  expression  of  elaborate  composure.  In  this  condition 
he  faced  all  the  anger  of  the  offended  law,  and  the  more  confoiuiding 
gaze  of  the  assembled  crowd.  The  clerk  of  the  crown  now  ordered 
him  to  hold  up  his  right  hand.  The  dying  man  disentangled  it  from 
the  other,  and  held  it  up,  but  it  instantly  dropped  again.  Such  was 
his  state,  when,  in  the  solemn  simplicity  of  the  language  of  the  law, 
he  was  asked,  '  What  he  had  now  to  say,  why  judgment  of  death  and 
execution  thei-eon  should  not  be  awarded  against  him,  according  to 
law  ?'  Upon  this  Mr.  Curran  rose,  and  addressed  some  arguments  to 
the  court  in  arrest  of  judgment.  A  legal  discussion  of  considerable 
length  ensued.  The  condition  of  Mr.  Jackson  was  all  this  while 
becoming  worse.  Mr.  Curran  proposed  that  he  should  be  remanded, 
as  he  was  in  a  state  of  body  that  rendered  any  communication  between 
him  and  his  counsel  impracticable  :  Lord  Clonmel  thought,  it  lenity 
to  the  prisoner,  to  dispose  of  the  question  as  speedily  as  possible. 
The  windows  of  the  court  were  thrown  open  to  relieve  him,  and  the 
discussion  was  renewed  ;  but  the  fatal  group  of  death-tokens  were 
now  collecting  fast  around  him ;  he  was  evidently  in  the  final  agony. 
At  length,  while  Mr.  Ponsonby,  who  followed  Mr.  Curran,  was  urging 
further  reasons  for  arresting  the  judgment,  their  client  sunk  in  the 
dock." 

It  was  found  to  be  impossible  to  pronounce  the  sentence  of  death 
on  the  unfortunate  gentleman.  He  had  taken  poison,  and  his  voluntary 
act  anticipated  the  operation  of  justice.  Mr.  Curran  proceeds  to 
comment  upon  the  law  as  it  Avas  then  expounded  by  the  bench.  He 
says,  that  the  trial,  as  a  matter  of  legal  and  constitutional  interest, 
"  established  a  precedent  of  the  most  vital  (Englishmen  would  say, 
of  the  most  fatal)  importance  to  a  community  having  any  pretensions 
to  freedom.  Against  the  authority  of  Coke,  and  the  reasoning  of 
Blackstone,  and  against  the  positive  reprobation  of  the  principle  by  the 
English  legislature,  it  was  solemnly  decided  in  Jackson's  case,  that  in 
Ireland  one  witness  was  sufficient  to  convict  a  2>risoner  upon  the  charge 
of  high  treason — 'that  the  breath  which  cannot  even  taint  the 
character  of  a  man  in  England,  shall  in  Ireland  blow  him  from  the 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  183 

earth.'*  This  decision  has  ever  since  been  recognized  and  acted  upon, 
to  the  admiration  of  that  class  of  politicians  (and  they  have  abounded 
in  Ireland)  who  contend,  that  in  every  malady  of  the  state,  blood 
should  be  plentifully  drawn  ;  and  to  the  honest  indignation  of  men  of 
equal  capacity  and  integrity,  who  consider  that,  without  reason  or 
necessity,  it  establishes  an  odious  distinction,  involving  in  it  a  disdain 
of  what  Englishmen  boast  as  a  precious  privilege,  alluring  accusations 
upon  the  subject,  and  conferring  security  and  omnipotence  upon  the 
informer. 

"  It  is  a  little  singular  to  observe,  in  the  state  trials  that  followed, 
the  effects  of  such  a  law,  and  to  what  a  class  of  witnesses  it  familiarized 
the  Irish  courts  of  justice.  From  the  event  it  would  appear,  that  there 
was  as  much  of  prophecy,  as  of  constitutional  zeal,  in  Mr.  Curran's 
efforts  to  prevent  its  establishment,  and  afterwards  to  produce  its 
repeal.  To  say  nothing  but  of  a  few  of  those  cases  in  which  he  acted 
as  counsel,  the  fate  of  Jackson,  M'Cann,  Byrne,  Bond,  the  Sheareses, 
Finney,  rested  almost  entirely  on  the  credibility  of  a  single  witness. 
AU  of  these,  except  the  last,  were  convicted ;  and  that  they  were 
involved  in  the  projects  for  which  they  were  tried  and  suffered,  is  now 
a  matter  of  historical  notoriety.  Few,  it  is  hoped,  will  maintain  the 
dangerous  principle,  that  the  subject  shoidd  have  the  inducement  of 
impunity  to  conspire  against  the  state — such  a  doctrine  would  bring 
instant  ruin  upon  any  society  ;  but  every  friend  to  constitutional  law 
will  distinguish  between  the  evidence  that  precedes  a  conviction  and 
that  which  follows  ;  he  will  remember  that  the  forms  of  trial,  and  the 
legality  of  evidence,  have  not  been  established  for  the  solitary  purpose 
of  punishing  the  guilty ;  that  their  most  precious  use  is  for  the  security 
of  innocence ;  and  that,  if  foi*e- judging  the  real  offender,  we  too  hastily 
deprive  him  of  a  single  privilege  of  defence,  we  establish  a  perilous 
rule  that  survives  the  occasion  and  extends  beyond  it,  and  of  which 
those  who  never  offended  may  hereafter  be  the  victims.  If  the  trials 
of  the  individuals  just  named  be  considered  with  a  reference  to  this 
view,  they  will  be  found  to  contain  matter  of  important  reflection. 
We  may  not  feel  justified  in  lamenting  their  personal  fate — in  giving 
to  their  memories  '  the  traitorous  humanity  and  the  rebel  teai','  yet  we 
cannot  but  be  shocked  at  the  characters  of  the  persons  by  whose 
evidence  they  were  carried  off.  These  were,  all  of  them,  men  of 
blighted  reputation.  It  was  not  merely  that  they  had  been  accomplices 
in  the  crimes  which  they  came  to  denounce ;  and  that,  finding  the 
speculation  dangerous  and  unprofitable,  they  endeavoured  to  retrieve 
their  credit  and  circumstances,  by  setting  up  as  '  loyal  apostates.' 

*  Mr.  Curran's  defence  of  Jackson. 


184  MEMOIR  OF 

Deeper  far  was,  if  not  their  legal  offence,  their  moral  depravity. 
Dreadful  were  the  confessions  of  guilt,  dishonour,  and  irreligion, 
extorted  from  these  wretches.  If  their  direct  examination  produced  a 
list  of  the  prisoners'  crimes,  as  regularly  did  their  cross-examination 
elicit  a  darker  catalogue  of  their  own.  In  the  progress  of  their  career 
from  participation  to  discovery,  all  the  tender  charities  of  life  were 
abused — every  sacred  tie  rent  asunder.  The  agent,  by  the  semblance 
of  fidelity,  extracted  the  secret  of  his  client  and  his  friend,  and  betrayed 
him  !*  The  spy  resorted  to  the  habitation  of  his  victim,  and,  while 
sharing  his  hospitality,  and  fondling  his  children,  was  meditating  his 
ruin.f  Here  was  to  be  seen  the  wild  atheist,  who  had  gloried  in 
his  incredulity,  enjoying  a  lucid  interval  of  faith,  to  stamp  a  legal 
value  on  his  oathj — there  the  dishonest  dealer,  the  acknowledged 
perjurer,  the  future  murderer.§" 

The  remarks  of  the  Edinburgh  Review  are  forcible  and  just,  and 
had  the  good  fortune  of  giving  rise  to  a  new  and  safer  system.  On 
reading  the  Edinburgh  Review,  Lord  Holland  felt  the  inequality  and 
injustice  of  the  law,  and,  with  his  characteristic  promptitude,  intro- 
duced a  bill  to  extend  the  provisions  of  the  7th  Wm.  III.,  c.  3,  to 
Ireland. 

"  This  case,  however,  is  chiefly  remarkable  for  having  settled  the 
point,  that  in  Ireland  a  man  may  be  convicted  of  treason  on  the 
testimony  of  a  single  witness.  When  the  English  statutes,  requiring 
two,  were  adopted  in  that  country,  those  declaratory  clauses  were 
omitted  ;  and  the  question  came  therefore  to  be,  whether,  on  the  old 
common  law,  two  witnesses  had  not  always  been  necessary  for  such  a 
conviction.  Lord  Coke  had  given  a  clear  opinion  in  the  affirmative ; 
but  Foster  and  Hawkins  thought  differentl}- .  There  had  been  no  trial 
for  treason  in  Ireland  for  upwards  of  a  century ;  and  the  point  had 

*  Jackson's  Trial. 

t  Jackson's  Trial  and  the  Trial  of  the  Sheareses.  A  few  days  before  Cockayne 
had  openly  announced  himself  as  an  informer,  he  was  invited  to  accompany  Jackson 
to  dine  with  a  friend  of  the  latter.  After  dinner,  as  soon  as  the  wine  liad  suffi- 
ciently circulated,  Jackson,  according  to  a  previous  suggestion  from  Cockayne, 
began  to  sound  the  political  dispositions  of  the  company,  and  particularly  addressed 
himself  to  a  gentleman  of  rank  who  sat  beside  him,  and  who,  there  has  been  subse- 
quent reason  to  believe,  was  deeply  involved  in  the  politics  of  the  time.  During  the 
conversation,  Cockayne  appeared  to  have  fallen  asleep  ;  but,  in  the  midst  of  it,  the 
master  of  the  house  was  called  out  by  his  servant,  who  informed  him,  that  he  had 
observed  something  very  singular  in  Mr.  Jackson's  friend — "  he  has  his  hand," 
said  the  servant,  "  over  his  face,  and  pretends  to  be  asleep  ;  but  when  I  was  in  the 
room  just  now,  I  could  perceive  the  glistening  of  his  eye  through  his  fingers."  The 
gentleman  returned  to  his  guests ;  and,  whispering  to  him  who  was  conversing 
with  Jackson  to  be  cautious  in  his  language,  probably  prevented  some  avowal 
which  might  eventually  have  cost  him  his  life.  ITpon  such  trivial  accidents  do  the 
fates  of  men  depend  in  agitated  times  ! 

J  Trial  of  (he  Sheareses. 

§  Finney's  Trial ;  and  other  State  Trials  of  1798. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM   JACKSON.  185 

never  before  occurred.  It  was  determined,  as  we  have  already  stated, 
in  conformity  with  the  more  recent  authorities ;  though  nothing  can 
be  more  revolting  than  such  an  anomaly  in  the  constitutional  law  of 
tAvo  united  kingdoms — and  nothing  more  disgusting  than  the  scenes 
to  which  this  decision  speedily  gave  rise  in  the  least  fortunate  of  the 
two.  The  principle,  it  is  manifest,  cannot  possibly  be  right  in  both  : 
and  the  English  prisoner  must  either  have  too  many  privileges,  or  the 
Irish  too  few.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  listen  to  the  suggestion,  that,  from 
the  state  of  society  in  Ireland,  it  was  necessary  to  give  the  Crown  this 
additional  security : — For  the  same  disordered  or  depraved  state  of 
morality  which  renders  treason  probable,  is  still  more  likely  to  produce 
false  accusations ;  and  whoever  will  read  the  state  trials,  either  in 
England  or  Ireland,  will  find  that  treason  and  perjury  have  always 
been  contemporary  crimes,  and  that  the  dangers  of  the  crown  and  of 
the  subject  have  uniformly  been  reciprocal." 

Jackson's  funeral  was  well  attended  by  numbers  of  the  United 
Irishmen.  Barrington  says,  "  he  had  a  splendid  funeral,  and,  to  the 
astonishment  of  Dublin,  it  was  attended  by  several  members  of  parlia- 
ment, and  barristers !  A  Mr.  Tighe,  Counsellor  Richard  Guiness, 
(Sir  Jonah  might  have  added  the  two  Sheareses,  also  members  of  the 
profession),  were  amongst  them."  It  is  unnecessary  to  remark,  that 
Barrington  was  too  consistent  a  patriot  to  be  of  the  number  of  those 
who,  as  was  said  in  the  House  of  Commons,*  "  paid  the  honours  of 
treason"  to  the  unfortunate  Jackson. 

He  is  buried  in  the  churchyard  of  St.  Michan's,  where  also  are 
interred  the  remains  of  Oliver  Bond,  and  of  Henry  and  John  Sheares. 

*  Debates  of  the  Irish  House  of  Commons,  June,  1 795. 


PROCEEDINGS 


IN  THE 


COURT    OF   KING'S   BENCH,    IN    IRELAND, 


AGAINST 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON, 


ON  AN  INDICTMENT 


CHAEGING  HIM  ¥ITH  HIGH  TREASON. 

34  AND  35  GEO.  III.  A.D.  1794,  1795. 


K  I  N  G'S    BENCH, 

Monday,  June  2,  1794. 

Mr.  M'Nally,  on  the  pai't  of  the  Rev.  William  Jackson,  a  prisoner 
in  his  Majesty's  goal  of  Newgate,  moved  the  court,  that  Mr.  Keane, 
the  prisoner's  agent,  might  have  access  to  the  prisoner,  for  the  purpose 
of  receiving  instructions  to  prepare  for  his  defence.  Mr.  Jackson  was 
committed  upon  the  28th  of  April,  1794,  by  virtue  of  a. warrant  from 
Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice  of  the  King's  Bench,  upon  a  charge  of 
High  Treason ;  Mr.  Keane  was  refused  access  to  Mr.  Jackson,  who 
was  denied  the  use  of  pen,  ink  and  paper,  as  Mr.  Keane  swears  he  is 
informed  and  believes. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  have  no  objection  that  every  reason- 
able access  should  be  had  to  the  prisoner ;  but  care  must  he  taken 
that  no  improper  use  be  made  of  it.  The  constant  practice  here  and 
in  England  is  to  admit  of  access  at  reasonable  times  ;  but  persons  are 
not  to  go  in  or  come  out  without  being  searched,  if  necessary,  so  as 
that  no  opportunity  be  given  of  conveying  instruments  that  might 
assist  an  escape,  and  also  that  no  communications  may  be  had  with 
the  King's  enemies,  that  being  the  charge  against  the  prisoner,  that 
he  communicated  with  the  King's  enemies  for  the  purpose  of  levying 
war  against  this  kingdom. 

The  counsel  for  the  prisoner  being  satisfied  with  this  declaration  of 
Mr.  Attorney- General,  took  nothing  by  the  motion. 


188  TRIAL    OF 

Monday,  30th  June,  1794. 

A  bill  of  indictment  having  been  preferred  against  the  Rev.  William 
Jackson,  before  the  Term  Grand  Jury  for  the  city  of  Dublin,  and  they 
having  returned  it  a  true  bill,  Mr.  Jackson  was  this  day  brought  to 
the  bar  of  the  King's  Bench,  and  having  prayed  that  counsel  might 
be  assigned  him,  he  was  desired  by  the  Court  to  name  his  counsel ;  he 
named  John  Philpot  Curran,  and  Geoi'ge  Ponsonby,  Esquires.,  two  of 
his  Majesty's  counsel,  who  were  assigned  by  the  Court  to  be  counsel 
for  the  prisoner. 

Clerk  of  the  Crown. — William  Jackson,  hold  up  your  right  hand. 

Mr.  Jackson  accordingly  held  up  his  right  hand  and  was  arraigned 
upon  the  following  indictment. 
County  of  the  city  of  \  "  The  jurors  for  our  Lord  the  King  upon  their 

Dublin,  to  wit.  J  oath  present,  that  an  open  and  public  war  on 
the  third  day  of  April,  in  the  thirty-fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  our 
Lord  George  the  Third,  by  the  grace  of  God,  of  Great  Britain,  France, 
and  Ireland,  King,  Defender  of  the  Faith,  and  soforth,  and  long  before, 
and  ever  since,  hitherto  by  land  and  by  sea,  was,  and  yet  is  carried  on 
and  prosecuted  by  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in 
France  against  our  most  serene,  illustrious,  and  excellent  Prince,  our 
said  Lord  the  now  King  ;  and  that  William  Jackson,  late  of  the  parish 
of  St.  Andrew,  in  the  city  of  Dublin,  and  county  of  the  said  city, 
clei'k,  a  subject  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  of  his  kingdom  of  Ireland, 
well  knowing  the  premises,  but  not  having  the  fear  of  God  in  his  heart, 
nor  weighing  the  duty  of  his  allegiance,  and  being  moved  and  seduced 
by  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  as  a  false  traitor  against  our  said  Lord 
the  now  King,  his  supreme,  true,  lawful  and  undoubted  Lord,  the 
cordial  love  and  true  and  due  obedience,  which  every  true  and  dutiful 
subject  of  our  said  present  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  towards  him  our 
said  Lord  the  King  should  bear,  wholly  withdrawing,  and  contriving, 
and  with  all  his  strength  intending  the  peace  and  common  tranquillity 
of  this  kingdom  of  Ireland  to  disquiet,  molest,  and  disturb,  and  the 
government  of  our  said  present  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  of  this 
kingdom  of  Ireland  to  change,  subvei't  and  alter,  and  our  said  Lord 
the  King  from  the  royal  state,  title,  honour,  power,  imperial  crown, 
and  government  of  this  his  kingdom  of  Ireland  to  depose  and  deprive, 
and  our  said  Lord  the  present  King  to  death  and  final  destruction  to 
bring  and  put,  he  the  said  William  Jackson,  on  the  said  third  day  of 
April,  in  the  said  thirty-fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  said  Lord  the 
King,  and  on  divers  other  days  and  times,  as  well  before  as  after  that 
day,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the  city  of  Dublin 
aforesaid,  and  county  of  the  said  city,  with  force  and  arms  fiilsely, 
wickedly  and  traitorously,  did  compass,  imagine  and  intend  the  said 
Lord  the  King,  then  and  there  his  supreme,  true  and  lawful  Lord,  of 
and  from  the  royal  state,  crown,  title,  power  and  government  of  this 
his  realm  of  Ii-eland,  to  depose  and  wholly  deprive,  and  the  same  Lord 
the  King  to  kill  and  bring  and  put  to  death  :  And  that  to  fulfil, 
perfect  and  bring  to  effect  his  most  evil  and  wicked  treason,  and 
treasonable  imaginations  and  compassings  aforesaid,  he  the  said 
William  Jackson  as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  during  the  said  war 
between  our  said  Lord  the  King,  and  the  said  persons  exercising  the 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  189 

powers  of  government  in  France,  to  wit,  on  the  third  day  of  April  in 
the  thii'ty-fourth  year  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid, 
in  the  city  and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  with  force  and 
arms,  falsely,  maliciously  and  traitorously  did  come  to  and  land  in 
this  kingdom  of  Ireland,  that  is  to  say,  at  Dublin  aforesaid,  for  the 
purpose  of  procuring  and  obtaining  information  and  accounts  of,  and 
concerning  the  situations  and  dispositions  of  the  subjects  of  our  said 
Lord  the  King  of  his  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  of  sending  and  causing 
to  be  sent  such  information  and  accounts  to  the  said  persons  exercising 
the  powers  of  government  in  France,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said 
Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  with  intent  to  aid  and  assist  the  said 
enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  against  our  said  Lord  the  King  in 
the  war  aforesaid :  And  that  afterwards  and  during  the  said  war 
between  the  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  exercising  the 
powers  of  government  in  France,  to  wit,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of 
April  in  the  said  thirty-fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  said  Lord  the 
King,  and  on  divers  other  days,  as  well  before  as  after  that  day, 
with  force  and  arms,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the  city 
and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  the  said  William  Jackson, 
as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  in  further  prosecution  of  his  treason 
and  treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  did,  with  divers  other  false  traitors, 
w^hose  names  are  to  the  said  jurors  unknown,  falsely,  wickedly 
and  traitorously  meet,  propose,  consult,  conspire,  confederate  and  agree 
to  raise,  levy  and  make  insurrection,  rebellion  and  war  within  this 
kingdom  of  Ireland,  against  our  said  Lord  the  King,  and  to  cause, 
procure,  and  incite  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment in  France,  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid, 
to  invade  this  kingdom  of  Ii'eland  with  ships  and  armed  men,  and  to 
carry  on  the  said  war  against  the  said  Lord  the  King,  within  this 
kingdom  of  Ireland.  And  that  during  the  said  war  between  our 
said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of 
government  in  France,  to  wit,  on  the  said  tv/enty-first  day  of  April,  in 
the  thirty-fourth  year  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid, 
in  the  city  and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  the  said 
"William  Jackson,  as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  and  in  further 
prosecution  of  his  ti-eason  and  treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  with 
force  and  arms,  falsely,  wickedly  and  traitorously  did  incite,  exhort 
and  counsel,  and  as  far  as  in  him  lay,  endeavour  to  move  and  persuade 
one  Theobald  Wolfe  Tone  to  travel  and  go  into  parts  beyond  the  seas 
to  represent  to  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government 
in  France,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid, 
that  divers  subjects  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  of  his  kingdom  of  Ire- 
land were  dissatisfied  with  the  government  of  our  said  Lord  the  Kino- 
of  his  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  to  incite,  move,  and  persuade  the  said 
persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  and  being 
enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  to  invade  the  kingdom  of  Leland, 
and  to  raise  and  make  war  therein  against  our  said  Lord  the  Kinff, 
and  that  dm-ing  the  said  war  between  the  said  Lord  the  King  and  the 
said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France  to  wit, 
on  the  same  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  and  on  divers  other  days  as 
well  before  as  after  the  said  last  mentioned  day,  at  the  parish  of  St. 
Andrew  aforesaid,  in  tlie  city  and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  afore- 


190  TRIAL.    OF 

said,  tlie  said  William  Jackson  as  sucli  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  in 
further  prosecution  of  his  treason  and  treasonable  purposes,  with  force 
and  anus,   falsely,  wickedly  and  traitorously  did   consult,   combine, 
conspire,  confederate  and  agree  with  divers  other  persons  whose  names 
are  to  the  said  jurors  unknown,  to  procure  and  provide  a  person  to 
travel  and  go  into  parts  beyond  the  seas  to  represent  to  the  said  persons 
exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France  and  being  enemies  of 
our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  that  divers  subjects  of  our  said 
Lord  the  King  of  his  Kingdom  of  L'eland  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
government  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  of  his  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and 
to  incite,  move  and  pex'suade  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers 
of  government  in  France,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King 
to  invade  this  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  to  raise  and  make  war  therein 
against  our  said  Lord  the  King :  And  that  during  the  said  war  between 
our  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  persons  exercising  the   powers  of 
government  in  France  to  Avit  on  the  same  day  and  year  last  aforesaid, 
and  on  divers  other  days  as  well  before  the  said  last  mentioned  day  as 
after,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the  city  and  county  of 
the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  the  said  William  Jackson  as  such  false 
ti'aitor  as  aforesaid,  in  further  prosecution  of  his  ti'eason  and  treason- 
able purposes  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms,  falsely,  wickedly  and 
traitorously  did  meet,   consult,   combine,    conspire,   confederate  and 
agree  with  divers  other  persons  whose  names  are  to  the  said  jurors 
unknown  ;  that  some  person  should  be  sent  into  France  to  notify  and 
reveal  to  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in 
France,  then  and  yet  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  the  state, 
circumstances,  and  condition  of  this  his  kingdom  of  Ireland  ;  and  the 
dispositions   and  inclinations  of  our  said  Lord  the   King's  subjects 
therein,  and  to  treat  and  negociate  with,  and  to  incite,  stir  up  and 
encourage  the  said  persons  exei'cising  the  powers  of  government  in 
France,  then  and  yet  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid  to 
invade  this  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  to  change,  alter  and  subvert  the 
govei'nment  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  of  his  said  kingdom  of  Ireland. 
And  that  during  the  said  war  between  our  said  Lord  the  King  and 
the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France  to 
wit,  on  the  said  twenty-first  day  of  April  in  the  thirty-fourth  year 
aforesaid,   at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  in   the   city  and 
county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid  ;  he  the  said  William  Jackson 
as  such  false  traitor  as  afoi'esaid  in  prosecution  of  his  said  treason  and 
treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms,  falsely,  wickedly, 
and  traitorously  did  compose  and  write,  and  cause  to  be  composed  and 
written,  a  certain  letter  to  be  sent  to  one  William  Stone  in  London,  in 
the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain ;  and  in  and  by  the  said  letter  the  said  Wm. 
Jackson,  falsely,  wickedly,  and  traitorously  did  direct  and  instruct  the 
said  William  Stone,  to  reveal  and  disclose  to  the  said  persons  exercising 
the  powers  of  government  in  France,  and  to  the  people  in  France, 
then  and  yet  enemies  of  our  said  present  Lord  the  King,  a  scheme  and 
intention  of  the  said  William  Jackson  and  other  false  traitors  to  our 
said  Lord  the  King,  to  send  a  person  from  this  kingdom  of  Ireland  to 
satisfy   and   convince   the   said   persons   exercising   the    powers   of 
government  in  France  so  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as 
aforesaid,  of  divers  of  his  said  Majesty's  subjects  in  Ireland  being 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  IQl 

ready  to  aid  and  assist  the  said  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  and 
to  treat  and  negociate  with  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of 
government  in  France,  then  and  yet  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the 
King  for   an    invasion    of  the    said   kingdom    of  Ireland,    but   that 
the  private  affairs  of  the  person  intended  to  be  sent  woukl  not  permit 
him  to  go,  and  therefore  he  the  said  William  Jackson  would  send  a 
statement   of  the   situation   and   disposition   of  the   inhabitants   of 
the  said  kingdom  of  Ireland,  drawn  up  by  a  certain  person  to  the 
jui'ors  unknown  in  order  to  be  sent  and  delivered  to  the  said  persons 
exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France  then  and  yet  enemies 
of  our  said  Lord  the  King :   And  that  during  the  said  war  between 
our  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of 
government  in  France  to  wit,  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  April  in 
the  thirty-fourth  year  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid, 
in  the   city  and  county  of   the   city  of  Dublin    aforesaid,   the  said 
William  Jackson  as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  and  in  further 
prosecution  of  his  treason  and  treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  with 
force  and  arms,  falsely,  maliciously,  and  traitorously  did  compose  and 
write  and  cause  to  be  composed  and  written,  a  certain  other  letter  to 
be  sent  to  the  said  William   Stone  in  London,  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain,  requesting  the  said  William  Stone  to  cause  and  procure 
to  be  notified  and  declared  to  a  certain  person  then  being  in  foreign 
parts  beyond  the  seas,  but  whose  name  is  to  the  said  jurors  unknown, 
that  a  statement  of  the  situation  and  dispositions   of  divers  of  the 
subjects  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  of  his  kingdom  of  Ireland,  would 
be  forthwith  sent  by  him  the  said  William  Jackson  to  be  communicated 
to  the  said  persons  exei'cising  the  powers  of  government  in  France, 
and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  to  convince 
them  of  the  readiness  of  such  last  mentioned  subjects  of  our  said 
Lord  the  King,  to  aid  and  assist  the  said  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the 
King  in  an  invasion  of  this  kingdom  of  Ireland :  And  that  during  the 
said  Avar  between  our  said   Lord   the   King  and   the   said  persons 
exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  to  Avit,  on  the  same 
day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew,  aforesaid, 
in  the   city  and    county  of  the  city  of  Dublin   aforesaid,  the    said 
William  Jackson  as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  and  in  further 
prosecution  of  his  treason  and  treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  with 
force    and    arms,    falsely,   Avickedly  and   traitorously    delivered    and 
caused  and  procured  to  be  delivered  the  said  letters  into  the  office  of 
the  post  at  Dublin,   aforesaid,  to  be  from  the  said  office  conveyed  and 
delivered   to    the    said    William    Stone :   And  that    during  the  said 
war  between  our  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  exercising 
the  powers  of  government  in  France,  to  wit,  on  the  same  day  and 
year  last  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew,  aforesaid,  in  the  city 
and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  aforesaid,  the  said  William  Jackson 
as   such   false   traitor  as    aforesaid,    and    in    further  prosecution    of 
his  treason  and  treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms, 
falsely,  maliciously  and  traitorously  did  compose  and  Avrite  and  cause 
and  procure  to  be  composed  and  written  a  certain  other  letter  to  be 
sent   to    Benjamin    Beresford,    in    foreign   parts    beyond   the    seas, 
requesting  the  said  Benjamin  Beresford  to  infoi'm  a  certain  other 
person  then  also  living  in  foreign  parts  beyond  the  seas,  but  whose 


192  TKIAL  OF 

name  is  to  tlie  said  jurors  unknoAvn,  that  an  account  of  the  situation  j 
and  dispositions  of  divers  of  the  subjects  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  of 
his  kingdom  of  Ireland,  was  sent  for  the  said  last  mentioned  person 
unknown  to  be  communicated  to  the  said  persons  exercising  the 
powers  of  government  in  France  and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord 
the  King  as  aforesaid :  And  that  afterwards  and  during  the  said  war 
between  our  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  exercising 
the  powers  of  government  in  France,  to  wit,  on  the  same  day  and 
year  last  aforesaid  at  the  pai'isli  of  St.  Andrew,  aforesaid,  in  the  city 
and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  aforesaid,  the  said  William  Jackson 
as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  and  in  further  prosecution  of  his 
treason  and  treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms, 
falsely,  wickedly  and  traitorously  delivered  and  caused  and  procured 
to  be  delivered  the  said  last  mentioned  letter  into  the  said  office  of  the 
post  at  Dublin,  aforesaid,  to  be  from  the  said  office  conveyed  and 
delivered  to  the  said  Benjamin  Beresford :  and  that  during  the  said 
war  between  our  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  exercising 
the  powers  of  government  in  France,  to  wit,  on  the  same  day  and 
year  last  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  St.  Andi'ew,  aforesaid,  in  the  city 
and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  aforesaid,  the  said  William  Jackson 
as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid  and  in  further  prosecution  of 
his  treason  and  treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms, 
falsely,  maliciously,  and  traitorously  did  compose  and  write  and 
cause  and  procure  to  be  composed  and  written  divers  accounts  and 
instructions  in  writing  to  publish  and  declare  to  the  said  persons 
exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  and  being  ene- 
mies of  our  said  Lord  the  King  for  the  purpose  of  inciting 
the  said  persons  to  invade  this  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  to 
raise  and  make  war  therein  against  our  said  Lord  the  King,  divers 
matters  and  things  of  and  concerning  the  people  of  this  kingdom  of 
Ireland,  and  amongst  other  things  that  the  Dissenters  were  steady 
republicans,  devoted  to  liberty,  and  through  all  the  stages  of  the 
French  revolution  had  been  enthusiastically  attached  to  it,  that  the 
peasantry  of  Ireland  manifested  a  degree  of  discontent  by  various 
insurrections,  that  there  was  no  where  a  higher  spirit  of  aristocracy 
than  in  all  the  privileged  orders,  the  clergy  and  the  gentry  of  Ii-eland 
down  to  the  very  lowest,  to  countervail  which  there  appeared  a  spirit 
rising  in  the  people  which  never  existed  before  but  which  was  spread- 
ing most  rapidly  as  appeared  by  the  Defenders  as  they  were  called 
and  other  insurgents,  that  in  Ireland  the  name  of  England  and  her 
power  was  universally  odious,  save  with  those  who  had  an  interest  in 
maintaining  it,  a  body  however  only  formidable  by  property  and  situ- 
ation, but  which  the  first  convulsion  would  level  in  the  dust,  that  on 
the  contrary  the  great  bulk  of  the  people  (meaning  the  people  of 
Ireland,)  would  be  ready  to  throw  off  the  yoke  (meaning  the  govern- 
ment of  our  said  Lord  the  King  in  that  country)  if  they  saw  any 
force  sufficiently  strong  to  resort  to  for  defence  till  arrangements 
could  be  made,  that  the  government  of  Ireland  Avas  only  to  be  looked 
upon  as  a  government  of  force,  that  the  moment  a  superior  force 
appeared,  it  would  tumble  at  once,  as  being  founded  neither  in  the 
interests  nor  in  the  affections  of  the  people ;  that  there  seemed  little 
doubt  but  an  i)ivasion  (meaning  an  invasion  of  Ireland,  by  the  said 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM   JACKSON.  193 

enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King)  in  sufficient  force,  would  be  sup- 
ported by  tlie  people  (meaning  the  people  of  Ireland)  that  there  Avas 
scarcely  any  army  in  the  country  (meaning  in  Ireland)  and  that  the 
militia,  (meaning  the  militia  of  Ireland)  would  to  a  moral  certainty 
refuse  to  act  if  they  should  see  such  a  force  as  they  could  look  to  for 
support :   And  also  that  the  said  William  Jackson  as  such  false  traitor 
as  aforesaid,  during  the  said  war  between  our  said  Lord  the  King 
and  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France 
to  wit,  on  the  same  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  Saint 
Andrew  aforesaid,    in  the   city  and  county  of  the  city  of   Dublin 
aforesaid  in  further  prosecution  of  his  treason  and  treasonable  pur- 
poses aforesaid  with  force  and  arms  did  falsely,  wickedly  and  traitor- 
ously compose  and  write,  and  cause  and  procure  to  be  composed  and 
Avritten  divers  other  accounts  and  instructions  in  writing  of  and  con- 
cerning the  people  of  this  kingdom  of  Ireland  to  incite,  move  and 
persuade  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in 
France,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as   afoi'esaid, 
to  invade  this  kingdom  of  Ireland  and  to  raise  and  make  war  therein 
against  our  said  Lord  the  King,  all  which  said  accounts  and  instruc- 
tions in  writing  herein  before  mentioned  to  have  been  written  and 
composed,  and  caused  and  procured  to  be  written  and  composed  by 
the  said  William  Jackson,  he  the  said  William  Jackson  as  such  false 
traitor  as   aforesaid,  and  in  further  prosecution  of  his  treason   and 
treasonable  purposes  aforesaid,  afterwards  and  during  the   said  war 
between  our  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  exercising  the 
powers  of  government  in  France,  to  wit,  on  the  same  day  and  year 
last  aforesaid  at  the  parish  of  St.   Andrew  aibresaid   in   the  city  and 
county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid  with  force  and  arms  falsely, 
wickedly  and  traitorously  delivered  and  caused  and  procured  to  be 
delivered  into  the  said  office  of  the  post  at  Dublin  aforesaid,  to  be 
from   thence   conveyed   into   foreign    parts    beyond   the   seas,    and 
there,  to  wit,  in  foreign  parts  beyond  the  seas  to  be  delivei'ed  to 
certain  pei'sons  on  the  behalf  and  for  the  use  of  the  said  persons  ex- 
ercising the  powers  of  government  in  France  and  being  enemies  of 
our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  for  the  information,  encourage- 
ment and  assistance  of  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment in  France,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  afore- 
said :  And  that  during  the  said  war  between  our  said  Lord  the  King 
and  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France, 
to  wit,  on  the  same  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  aforesaid, 
in  the  city  and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  the  said  Wm.  Jackson 
as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  and  in  further  prosecution  of  his  ti'ea- 
son   and  treasonable  purposes  aforesaid  with  force  and  arms  falsely, 
wickedly  and  traitorously  delivered  and  caused  and  procured  to  be  de- 
livered into  the  said  office  of  the  post  at  Dublin  aforesaid,  to  be  from 
thence  conveyed  into  foreign  parts  beyond  the  seas  and  delivered  to  the 
said  persons  exei'cising  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  and  being 
enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
citing the  said  persons  to  invade  the  kingdom  of  Ireland  and  to  raise 
and  make  war  therein  against  our  said  Lord  the  King,  divers  other 
accounts  and  instructions  in  writing  of  and  concerning  the  people  of 
this  kingdom  of  Ireland,  whereof  he  the  said  William  Jackson  then 

o 


194  TRIAL    OF 

and  there  well  knew  the  contents,  pui-porting  and  containing  therein 
amongst  other  things  that  the  Dissenters  were  steady  republicans 
devoted  to  liberty,  and  through  all  the  stages  of  the  French  revolu- 
tion had  been  enthusiastically  attached  to  it;  that  the  peasantry  of 
Ireland  manifested  a  degree   of  discontent  by  various  insurrections, 
that   there    was    no   where    a    higher  spirit  of  aristocracy   than  in 
all  the  privileged  orders,  the  clergy  and  the  gentry  of  Ireland  down 
to  the  very  lowest,  to  countervail  which  there  appeared  a  spirit  rising 
in  people  which  never  existed  before,  but  which  was  spreading  most 
rapidly  as  appeared  by  the  Defenders,  as  they  were  called,  and  other 
insurgents  ;  that  in  Ireland  the  name  of  England  and  her  power  was 
universally  odious,  save  with  those  who  had  an  interest  in  maintain- 
irig  it ;  a  body  however  only  formidable  from  situation  and  property, 
but  which  the  first  convulsion  would  level  in  the  dust ;  that  on  the 
contrary,  the  great  bulk  of  the  people  (meaning  the  people  of  Ire- 
land) would  be  ready  to  throw  oif  the  yoke,  if  they  saw  any  force 
sufficiently  strong  to  resort  to  for  defence  till  arrangements  could  be 
made ;  that  the  government  of  Ireland  was  only  to  be   looked  upon 
as  a  government  of  force :  that  the  moment  a  superior  force  appeared, 
it  would  tumble  at  once  as  being  founded  neither  in  the  interests  nor 
in  the  afiections  of  the  people  ;  that  there  seemed  little  doubt  but  an 
invasion  (meaning  an  invasion  of  Ireland  by  the  said  enemies  of  our 
said  Lord  the  King)  in  sufficient  force,  would  be  supported  by  the 
people,  (meaning  the  people  of  Ireland,)  that  there  was  scai'cely  any 
army  in  the   country  (meaning  in   Ireland,)    and   that   the  militia 
(meaning  the  militia  of  Ireland,)  would  to  a  moral  certainty  refuse 
to  act  if  they  should  see  such  a  force  as  they  could  look  to  for  sup- 
port :  And  also  that  the  said  William  Jackson  as  such  false  traitor  as 
aforesaid  during  the  said  war  between  our  said  Lord  the  King  and 
the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  to 
wit,  on  the  same  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  at  the   parish   of  St. 
Andrew   aforesaid,    in   the  city   and  county  of  the   city  of  Dublin 
aforesaid  in  fui'ther  prosecution  of  his  treason  and  treasonable  pur- 
poses aforesaid,  with  force   and  arms,  falsely,   wickedly  and  traitor- 
ously delivered  into  the  said  office  of  the  post  at  Dublin  aforesaid,  to 
be  from  thence  carried   into    foreign    parts    beyond   the  seas,    and 
delivered  to  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in 
France,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid, 
divers  other  accounts  and  instructions  in  writing,  of  and  concerning 
the  people  of  this  kingdom  of  L'eland,  whereof  he  the  said  William 
Jackson  then  and  there  well  knew  the  contents,  to  incite,  move   and 
persuade  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers   of  government  in 
France,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as   aforesaid, 
to  invade  this  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  to  raise  and  make  Avar  therein, 
against  our  said  Lord  the  King,  against  the  duty  of  the  allegiance  of 
him  the  said  William  Jackson,  against  the  peace  of  our  said  Lord 
the  King,  his  crown  and  dignity,  and  contrary  to  the  form  of  the 
statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided. 

And  the  said  jurors  for  our  said  Sovereign  Lord  the  King,  upon 
their  oath,  further  present ;  that  an  open  and  public  Avar  on  the  said 
third  day  of  April,  in  the  thirty-fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  said 
Sovereign  Lord  George  the  Third,  by  the   Grace   of  God  of  Great 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM   JACKSON.  195 

Britain,  Fi-ance  and  Ireland,  King,  Defender  of  the  Faith,  and  so  forth, 
and  long  before  and  ever  since,  hitherto  by  land  and  by  sea  was  and 
yet  is  carried  on  and  prosecuted  by  the  said  pei-sons,  exercising  the 
powers  of  government  in  France,  against  our  most  serene,  illustrious 
and  excellent  Prince,  our  said  Lord  the  now  King ;  and  that  the  said 
William  Jackson,  a  subject  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  of  his  kingdom 
of  Ireland,  well  knowing  the  premises,  not  having  the  fear  of  God  in 
his  heart,  nor  weighing  the  duty  of  his  allegiance,  but  being  moved 
and  seduced  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil ;  as  a  false  traitor  against 
our  most  serene,  illustrious  and  excellent  Prince,  George  the  Third, 
now  King  of  Ireland,  and  so  forth  ;  and  contriving  and  with  all  his 
strength  intending  the  peace  and  common  tranquillity  of  this  kingdom 
of  Ireland  to  disquiet,  molest,  and  disturb,  and  the  government  of  our 
said  present  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  of  this  kingdom  of  Ireland,  to 
change,  subvert  and  alter  ;  he  the  said  William  Jackson,  during  the 
war  aforesaid,  to  wit  on  the  said  third  day  of  April,  in  the  thirty- 
fourth  year  aforesaid,  and  on  divers  other  days  and  times,  as  well 
befoi-e  as  after  that  day,  with  force  and  arms  at  the  said  parish  of  St. 
Andrew  in  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  and  county  of  the  said  city, 
unlawfully  and  traitorously  was  adhering  to,  and  aiding  and  comfort- 
ing the  said  persons,  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France, 
and  then  being  enemies  of  our  said  present  Sovereign  Lord  the  King 
as  aforesaid ;  that  in  the  prosecution,  performance  and  execution  of 
the  said  traitoi'ous  adhering  of  the  said  William  Jackson  to  the  said 
persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France  then  being 
enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  present  King  afterwards  and  dui'ing  the 
said  war  between  our  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  exer- 
cising the  powers  of  government  in  France,  to  wit,  on  the  said  third 
day  of  April,  in  the  thirty-fourth  year  aforesaid,  at  the  parish  of  St. 
Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the  city  and  the  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin 
aforesaid,  he  the  said  William  Jackson  as  such  false  traitor  as  afore- 
said with  force  and  arms  falsely,  maliciously  and  traitorously  did  come 
to  and  land  in  this  kingdom  of  Ireland  that  is  to  say  at  Dublin  afore- 
said, for  the  purpose  of  procuring  and  obtaining  information  and 
accounts  of  and  concerning  the  situation  and  disposition  of  the  sub- 
jects of  our  said  Lord  the  King  of  his  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  of 
sending  and  causing  to  be  sent  such  information  and  accounts  to  the 
said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France  and 
being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  with  an  intent 
to  aid  and  assist  the  said  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  Kinor  ag-ainst 
our  said  Lord  the  King  in  the  war  aforesaid." 

[The  indictment  then  proceeds  to  enumerate  the  same  overt  acts 
mentioned  in  support  of  the  first  charge.] 

Clerk  of  the  Crown How  say  you,  William  Jackson,  are  you 

guilty  of  the  treason  whereof  you  stand  indicted,  and  arraigned  or 
not  ? 

Mr.  Jackson Not  guilty. 

Clerk  of  the  Crown — Culprit,  how  will  you  be  tried  ? 

Mr.  Jackson By  God  and  my  country. 

Clerk  of  the  Crown God  send  you  a  good  deliverance- 
Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  am  now  humbly  to  move  your  Lord- 


196  TRIAL  OF 

ships,  that  a  day  may  be  appointed  for  the  trial  of  the  prisoner.  If 
the  prisoner  be  not  ready  for  his  trial  this  term,  I  have  no  objection 
to  its  being  postponed  until  the  next  term. 

Mr.  CuRRAN I  have  been  assigned  by  the  court  as  counsel  for 

the  prisoner.  It  is  rather  the  duty  of  my  client  in  his  present  situa- 
tion, to  wait  until  he  is  apprized  of  what  the  inclination  of  the  court 
may  be,  before  he  expresses  his  wish  upon  the  subject. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-  Justice. —  Undoubtedly  the  first  duty 
of  this  court  is  to  dispose  of  the  crown  business,  which  may  come 
before  it. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — If  my  client  is  to  imderstand  that  the  inclination 
of  the  court  is  to  appoint  a  day  for  the  trial  in  this  term,  it  will  be 
necessary  for  me  to  address  a  word  or  two  to  the  court.  I  make  no 
difficulty  of  saying  in  this  case,  that  being  concerned  as  counsel  for  a 
man  in  a  perilous  situation,  I  cannot  think  of  wasting  any  claim  he 
may  have  to  indulgence.  It  is  better  he  should  submit  to  any  order 
made  by  the  court,  than  urge  any  application  from  himself. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief- Justice. — I  do  not  exactly  see  the  object  of 
this  address. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  mean  to  enquire  whether  the  court  wish  to  try 
the  prisoner  this  term. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief- Justice. — The  coui't  have  no  wish  about  it. 
Their  first  duty  is  to  go  through  the  business. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  will  put  an  end  to  this,  I  move  to 
appoint  the  first  return  day  in  the  next  term  for  the  trial. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice. — The  prisoner  is  in  a  country  where 
he  will  have  every  possible  advantage  to  prepare  for  his  trial. 

Friday,  the  7th  of  November,  being  appointed  for  his  trial,  he  was 
remanded  to  Newgate  without  any  objection. 

Friday,  7th  November.  1794. 

The  Court  having  sat,  Mr.  Jackson  was  put  to  the  bar,  and  the 
Sheriff"  of  the  city  of  Dublin  was  ordered  to  return  his  venire,  which 
he  did,  and  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  called  it  over. 

Mr,  CuRRAN. — This  trial  was  appointed  for  this  day.  It  is  more 
becoming,  not  to  wait  to  see  whether  the  counsel  for  the  crown  will 
say  anything  as  to  putting  off"  the  trial,  but  to  state  how  my  client  is 
circumstanced.  He  has  been  in  goal  for  many  months.  He  was 
arraigned  last  term,  when  he  pleaded,  and  the  court  were  pleased  to 
appoint  this  day  for  his  trial.  All  the  interval  he  has  employed  in 
the  most  deliberate  preparations  for  his  defence.  Though  a  native 
of  this  country,  his  life  has  been  spent  out  of  it.  He  sent  his  wife  to 
England  to  attend  upon  such  witnesses  as  he  thought  necessary  for 
the  trial.  She  spent  part  of  the  summer  in  England  where  an  agent 
was  employed,  and  Mr.  Jackson  himself  sent  another  upon  the  same 
business.  These  circumstances  are  ready  to  be  proved  by  afiidavit. 
Mrs.  Jackson  remained  in  England  some  time,  and  came  back  to 
prepare  for  the  necessary  attendance.  Some  property,  which  was  the 
joint  property  of  both,  has  been  sold  for  about  one-tenth  of  its  value, 
to  defray  the  expense  of  bringing  over  witnesses,  who  cannot  be 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  197 

compelled  to  attend  by  any  process  of  this  court,  and  therefore  their 
demands  must  be  complied  with.* 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice. — The  object  of  your  application  is, 
that  the  prisoner  is  not  ready  for  his  trial. 

Mr.  CuBRAN. — It  is  :  the  application  could  not  be  made  before, 
because  the  court  did  not  sit,  and  the  pi'isoner  had  expected  that  the 
witnesses  would  arrive.  A  considerable  sum  of  money  was  paid  to 
defray  their  expenses,  and  certain  matters  of  record  are  to  be  brought 
upon  a  security  of  £500  for  their  being  returned.  Mr.  Nailor,  an 
English  agent,  has  them  in  his  possession,  and  he  was  expected  here 
by  this  time.  He  is  a  material  witness,  and  his  arrival  with  the 
others  was  expected : — they  are  not  yet  ai'rived.  There  appeared  a 
paragraph  in  the  English  newspapers,  that  this  trial  was  put  off  to 
the  21st  instant.  Mr.  Jackson  states  that  his  witnesses  might  be  led 
into  error  by  this  publication,  which  was  made  without  any  conni- 
vance, or  privity  of  his.  There  is  another  circumstance  :  In  the  last 
Term,  the  court  assigned  the  prisoner  two  counsel ;  Mr.  Ponsonby 
was  one  of  them  ;  he  is  in  England  ;  his  arrival  was  expected  by  this 
time :  he  is  not  yet  arrived,  and  the  consequence  is,  that  Mr.  Jackson 
will  be  deprived  of  the  aid  of  one  of  his  counsel.  As  to  the  compara- 
tive aid  of  others,  it  is  unnecessary  to  compute  it :  the  court  will  feel 
the  weight  of  the  circumstance  I  have  mentioned.  The  prisoner 
swears  he  cannot  with  safety  to  his  life  go  to  trial  without  his  witnesses ; 
he  has  done  everything  to  procure  their  attendance,  and  does  expect 
them  and  his  counsel  upon  any  future  day  to  which  the  court  shall 
think  proper  to  postpone  the  trial. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief- Justice. — Li  this  term  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — He  instructs  me  to  speak  with  the  utmost  candour. 
His  wish  is  to  be  tried ;  he  means  no  artificial  delay  whatever. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice — If  this  affidavit  be  not  sworn,  let 
it  be  sworn  now  ;  when  it  is,  let  it  be  read. 

Three  affidavits  were  then  sworn  ;  one  by  the  prisoner,  a  second  by 
his  wife,  a  third  by  his  agent,  setting  forth  the  endeavours  which  had 
been  used  to  procure  the  attendance  of  witnesses,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Curran. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice "What  time  do  you  desire  ? 

Mr.  Curran. — He  would  wish  to  have  the  trial  this  term  if  pos- 
sible to  avoid  expense.  The  witnesses  may  be  on  their  way,  and  if  a 
day  be  appointed,  it  is  possible  they  may  not  be  here  on  that  day. 
Mr.  Jackson  feels  the  necessary  respect  for  the  court ;  but  he  would 
rather  wish  to  postpone  the  trial  until  the  next  term,  than  have  any 
day  named  in  this,  lest  thei'e  might  be  a  disappointment,  in  which 
case,  it  would  be  impossible  to  name  another  day  in  the  same  term, 
as  there  would  not  be  time  for  the  jury  process.  But  I  will  leave  it 
entirely  to  the  court,  I  press  no  day.  It  is  the  prisoner's  wish  to  be 
tried,  if  he  can  be  ready ;  if  the  witnesses  arrive,  it  is  the  Avish  of  his 
heart  to  be  tried. 

*  By  the  45  Geo.  III.  c.  92,  s.  3 — Service  of  subpoena  on  a  witness  in  one  part 
of  the  United  Kingdom,  to  give  evidence  in  a  criminal  prosecution,  is  as  effectual 
as  if  the  witness  had  been  served  with  the  subpoena  in  that  part  of  the  United 
Kingdom  where  he  is  required  to  appear,  1  Starkie  Law  of  Evidence,  83  ;  but  his 
reasonable  e.xpenses  must  be  tendered  to  him. 


198  TRIAL    OF 

Ml*.  Jackson — My  Lords,  the  impression  I  would  wish  to  leave 
on  this  court  is,  that  notwithstanding  four  months  might  appear  suf- 
ficient for  preparation,  yet  with  the  utmost  exertion,  I  have  not  been 
prepared.  Ten  days  after  my  trial  was  postponed,  I  put  matters  in 
arrangement ;  every  exertion  was  used  to  bring  over  the  witnesses 
and  documents  ;  notices  were  served  upon  certain  persons  in  England 
to  produce  certain  documents,  or  correspondences  relative  to  my  con- 
duct : — These  have  not  been  brought  over,  and  the  agent  in  England 
has  been  so  grossly  imposed  upon,  from  the  idea  that  the  trial  was 
put  off,  that  he  wrote  to  my  wife  that  he  would  not  come  over,  until 
he  heard  from  me.  Why  this  paragraph  was  put  into  the  papers  in 
England,  and  copied  into  the  papers  in  this  town,  I  cannot  say.  I 
never  felt  a  gi-eater  disappointment  in  my  life  than  in  not  being  tried 
this  day. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — On  the  part  of  the  crown  it  is  my 
duty  to  yield  to  every  thing,  consistent  with  the  administration  of 
justice,  not  only  that  the  subject  may  have  justice  administered  to 
him,  but  that  all  mankind  may  see  it  is  administered  fairly.  An  affi- 
davit has  been  read,  stating  some  circumstances  material  to  the  point. 
Others  have  been  read,  which  cannot  have  any  influence  whatever. 
I  say  this,  that  they  may  not  weigh  with  the  public  mind.  It  is  idle 
to  say  that  paragraphs  in  the  papers  of  England  or  Ireland  can  have 
any  weight ;  they  might  be  put  in  by  persons,  knowing  nothing  of 
the  matter,  which  might  be  the  present  case ;  it  is  impossible  any 
agent  could  be  so  ignorant  as  to  be  deceived  by  it.  Another  circum- 
stance is  the  absence  of  Mr.  Ponsonby.  The  bar  of  Ireland  furnishes 
able  men  fully  adequate  to  conduct  a  trial  of  this  kind : — There  are 
men  as  able  as  Mr.  Ponsonby,  and  when  I  say  that,  I  mean  to  pay 
no  small  compliment  to  him.  The  prisoner  swears  that  some  docu- 
ments are  necessary  to  be  had,  and  that  witnesses  are  to  be  brought 
over: — Under  such  circumstances,  I  should  not  think  myself  justi- 
fiable in  resisting  the  application ;  therefore  I  submit  to  the  court 
with  deference,  that  the  rule  should  be  to  postpone  the  trial ;  and 
that  there  may  be  no  ground  for  an  application  of  this  kind  in  future, 
I  submit,  that  it  would  be  best  to  postpone  the  trial  to  the  next  term, 
that  the  witnesses,  both  for  the  crown  and  the  prisoner  may  attend, 
and  have  full  notice  of  the  time  when  they  are  to  attend.  As  to 
postponing  the  trial  to  a  day  in  this  term,  and  then  to  have  it  post- 
poned again,  if  the  witnesses  do  not  attend,  it  may  be  done,  but  it  is 
not  regular  to  make  an  order  upon  a  contingency  of  that  kind.  The 
first  Monday  in  the  next  term  will  be  a  proper  day.  I  do  not  find, 
that  the  prisoner  complains,  but  the  world  should  know,  that  he  is 
treated  with  all  the  indulgence,  a  man  in  his  unfortunate  situation 
can  be.  He  was  indicted  as  soon  as  possible,  and  he  was  brought  up 
for  trial  at  a  time  that  the  witnesses  for  the  crown  were  ready  ;  he 
then  applied  to  postpone  his  trial. 

Mr.  Jackson — My  Lords,  may  I  be  admitted  to  say  a  word  or 
two  ?  Entirely  contrary  to  what  has  been  complained  of  by  several 
in  my  situation  in  England,  I  will  thus  observe,  and  testify  in  the 
face  of  this  court,  and  the  world  at  large,  that  for  a  man  in  my  situa- 
tion, it  is  impossible  to  be  treated  with  more  tenderness,  humanity, 
and  attention,  tlian  I  have  experienced.     Whether  the  complaints  in 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM   JACKSON.  199 

England  be  well  founded,  or  not,  the  treatment  I  have  met  with  is 
not  surprising,  because  it  only  proves,  what  every  one  knows,  that 
humanity  is  the  characteristic  of  Ireland. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief  Justice. — In  this  case  it  is  unnecessary  to 
know  what  passes  in  England,  a  country  as  famed  for  justice,  and 
other  great  qualifications,  as  any  other  country :  Justice  is  there 
administered  in  such  a  manner  as  to  exalt  it  above  the  other  countries 
of  the  earth.  It  is  our  duty  to  administer  justice  in  such  a  way  as  to 
give  satisfaction  to  all  parties.  I  am  glad  to  see,  that  the  prisoner 
thinks  he  is  well  treated.  The  court  has  been  entirely  passive  upon 
the  subject,  forming  the  rule  upon  the  consent  on  both  sides.  At 
present  there  appears  to  be  nothing  materially  different  between  the 
gentlemen  concerned  on  both  sides.  It  will  be  better  to  appoint  a 
cei'tain  day  ;  it  may  lessen  the  expense  to  the  prisoner,  to  give  ample 
and  full  time  to  be  fairly  prepared  for  the  trial  of  his  life,  that  he 
may  not  want  any  evidence  that  the  blessings  of  this  constitution  can 
furnish  him  with — that  he  may  come  furnished  Avith  every  possible 
defence  that  time  and  abilities  can  supply  on  the  one  hand  ;  on  the 
other,  judges  are  to  see,  that  the  punishment  of  flagitious  crimes  be 
not  trifled  with,  but  that  the  law  may  be  administered  with  calmness 
and  vigour.  These  are  my  sentiments,  and  from  the  opinion  I  have 
of  my  brethren,  are  their  sentiments.  To  apply  them  to  the  present 
occasion  there  is  no  question  to  debate  upon  this  application.  The 
most  probable  way  to  have  an  effectual  trial  will  be  to  appoint  the 
first  Monday  in  the  next  term.     Be  it  so. 

Mr.  Jackson. — My  Lords,  I  have  been  six  months  confined  in  a 
single  room.  If  I  might  be  permitted  occasionally,  and  that  very 
seldom  indeed,  with  the  keeper  of  the  prison,  to  walk  in  the  yard 
early  in  the  morning,  I  would  be  glad  of  it. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief-Justice. — The  court  cannot  meddle  with 
that.     If  you  complain  of  oppression,  we  will  interfere. 

The  prisoner  was  then  remanded. 

Monday,  January  26th,  1795. 

The  prisoner  was  this  day  put  to  the  bar,  and  the-  Clerk  of  the 
Crown  asked  him,  was  he  ready  for  his  trial.     He  said  he  was. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — My  Lords,  I  am  on  the  part  of  the 
Crown  to  move  the  court  to  postpone  the  trial  in  this  case  to  some 
day  within  the  term,  in  such  time  as  may  give  an  opportunity  to  issue 
a  venire  with  the  usual  return  of  fifteen  days,  which  can  be  upon  the 
10th  of  Februaiy  next.  The  ground  of  my  application  is  this,  that 
one  of  the  witnesses  is  absent  and  cannot  attend  this  day.*  I  have 
an  affidavit  in  my  hand,  sworn  by  Mr.  Kemmis,  the  Crown  Solicitor, 
stating,  that  he  used  the  utmost  diligence  to  bring  over  the  witnesses 
from  England,  all  of  whom,  except  two,  reside  in  London,  and  they 
aU  attended  last  term,  when  at  the  prisoner's  desire  the  trial  was  post- 
poned. Mr.  Kemmis  states  by  his  affidavit,  that  John  Cockayne,  a 
witness,  without  whose  testimony  the  justice  of  the  case  cannot  be 
attained,  did  write  a  letter  from  London,  stating  that  he  was  in  an  ill 

•  Rex  V.  Jones,  8  East.  31.     Rex  r.  D'Eon,  3  Burr.  1513.     1  Bl.  510. 


200  TRIAL  OF 

state  of  liealth,  but  would  set  out  on  the  next  day,  attended  by  Mi*. 
Mounsey,  another  witness  :  Mr.  Kemmis  also  states  that  he  received 
another  letter  from  C.  Mounsey,  dated  Holyhead,  January  24th  inst., 
mentioning  that  he  and  Mr.  Cockayne  had  arrived  there,  but  that  the 
severity  of  the  weather,  and  the  quantity  of  snow  upon  the  roads 
prevented  them  from  using  more  expedition  ;  that  Mr.  Cockayne  was 
in  an  ill  state  of  health,  that  he  consulted  a  surgeon,  who  advised 
him  not  to  set  out  for  Dublin.  Mr.  Kemmis  swears  that  he  received 
these  letters  by  post,  that  he  believes  them  to  be  genuine,  and  the 
contents  of  them  to  be  true.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  cannot 
be  disputed  that  the  trial  must  be  postponed,  it  will  be  for  the  gentle- 
men concerned  for  the  prisoner  to  say,  whether  they  would  have  any 
thing  added  to  the  rule. 

Here  the  affidavit  was  read,  and  it  appeared  to  contain  the  facts 
stated  by  Mr.  Attorney- General. 

Mr.  CuRRAN,  for  the  prisoner. — It  is  submitted  to  the  court,  that 
this  affidavit  does  not  lay  any  ground  to  warrant  your  lordships  in 
postponing  this  trial.  There  is  one  fact  stated,  which  Mr.  Kemmis 
does  not  recollect  precisely  :  he  was  mistaken  in  saying,  that  the  trial 
was  put  off  upon  the  arraignment,  at  the  instance  of  the  prisoner. 
The  arraignment  was  too  late  in  Trinity  Term  to  bring  on  the  trial. 
In  the  last  term,  the  trial  was  postponed  at  the  instance  and  upon  the 
motion  of  the  prisoner,  and  in  consequence  of  that,  it  comes  on  now, 
unless  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  court  to  postpone  it  further.  This 
man  has  been  lying  in  gaol  since  the  middle  of  April  last,  and  it  is 
not  a  matter  of  course  for  the  crown  to  postpone  a  trial,  where  the 
party  has  remained  so  long  in  prison,  and  is  ready  for  his  trial.  K  it 
were,  there  would  be  a  way  of  exterminating  almost  any  man  in  the 
community,  with  more  certainty  than  could  follow  any  trial,  because 
trial  and  conviction  can  extend  only  to  guilt,  but  that  kind  of  silent 
extermination  may  fall  upon  the  innocent.  To  postpone  the  trial  at 
the  present  time,  there  ought  to  be  proper  verified  matters  of  fact 
laid  before  the  court.  If  that  rule  be  a  true  one,  it  is  impossible  to 
postpone  the  trial  upon  this  affidavit,  because  it  does  not  state  any 
verified  matter  of  fact :  there  is  no  circumstance  stated  but  upon  the 
belief  of  Mr.  Kemmis.  There  is  no  affidavit  by  the  meanest  process- 
server,  that  he  made  any  request  personally,  or  that  Cockayne  made 
any  promise  to  attend.  A  letter  has  been  spoken  of:  is  there  any 
affidavit  of  any  man,  that  says  he  knows  the  handwriting  of  Cockayne, 
and  knows  this  letter  to  be  his  handwriting  ?  Mr.  Kemmis  says  he 
received  this  letter.  Does  he  know  the  handwriting  ?  No :  he  believes 
it  is  Cockayne's  letter.  Does  he  say  why  he  believes  it  ?  Does  he 
state  that  the  letter  promises  he  would  attend  at  any  other  time  ? 
Not  a  word.  It  states  that  he  is  sick.  But  there  ought  to  be  esta- 
blished facts  laid  before  the  court.  Let  the  gentlemen  concerned  for 
the  crown  make  the  motion  as  a  matter  of  course,  because  they  do 
not  wish  to  go  on  with  the  trial,  finding  it  is  either  impracticable,  or 
nugatory  ;  or  let  them  lay  some  satisfactory  matter  for  the  purpose. 
I  submit  that  there  is  nothing  to  intitle  them  to  the  order  now  sought 
for. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY  on  the  same  side — My  Lords,  I  humbly  submit, 
that  this  affidavit  docs  not  state  sufficient  matter  to  intitle  the  crown 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  201 

to  put  off  the  trial.  The  affidavit  should  state  specifically  that  the 
person,  on  account  of  whose  absence  the  trial  cannot  go  on,  was  a 
material  witness.  The  affidavit  does  not  state  that  positively ;  Mr. 
Kemniis  only  says,  he  believes,  and  he  used  these  extraordinary  words, 
"  that  the  justice  of  the  case  cannot  be  attained  without  this  witness." 
— What  does  Mr.  Kemmis  call  the  justice  of  the  case  ? — Hanging  my 
client  without  the  verdict  of  a  jury,  or  the  sentence  of  your  Lord- 
ships. The  affidavit  does  not  state  positively,  that  the  witness  was 
material  for  the  prosecution  ;  neither  does  it  state  that  his  attendance 
is  expected,  or  that  there  is  reasonable  ground  to  believe  he  will 
attend  at  any  future  day.  There  is  no  instance,  even  in  a  civil  case, 
where  a  trial  is  put  off,  unless  the  party  swears  positively  that  the 
witness  is  material,  and  that  there  was  reasonable  gTound  to  expect 
his  attendance.  The  letter  mentioned  in  the  affidavit  does  not  state, 
that  the  witness  will  come  ;  the  certificate  of  the  surgeon  does  not 
state,  that  the  indisposition  will  permit  the  witness  to  attend  at  a 
future  day,  nor  does  the  Crown  Solicitor  say  he  has  reason  to  think 
the  witness  will  attend.  Therefore  the  ingredients,  which  are  thought 
material  in  civil  cases,  are  wanting  in  this  case.  How  much  more 
material  are  they  in  a  case  of  ti^eason,  and  Avhere  the  party  has  lain 
nine  months  in  gaol  ? — This  is  a  mere  imposition  upon  the  simplicity 
of  the  Ci'owu  Solicitor. 

Mr.  Prime  Serjeant  in  reply  for  the  crown. — As  it  strikes  me, 
this  affidavit  is  more  full  and  pregnant  with  circumstances  to  lead  the 
discretion  of  the  court  than  any  I  remember.  The  first  position  is, 
that  John  Cockayne  is  a  material  witness,  as  he  believes  for  the 
crown.  How  is  it  possible  for  any  man  to  swear  to  more  than 
belief  in  such  a  case  ?  it  is  impossible  to  conjecture.  But  if  there 
be  any  doubt  uj^on  the  materiality  of  his  evidence,  your  lordships 
have  before  you,  that  which  will  satisfy  you  whether  it  be  material 
or  not.  Upon  looking  into  the  informations,  you  can  form  a 
conclusion  whether  this  man's  testimony  be  material  or  not,  at 
least  to  put  the  prisoner  upon  trial; — the  jury  will  determine 
whether  it  be  sufficient  for  conviction.  The  next  position  is, 
that  the  justice  of  the  case  cannot  be  attained  without  the  examina- 
tion of  Cockayne,  as  deponent  believes.  Look  then  to  the  same 
document,  and  see  whether  the  examination  of  Cockayne  be  not 
essentially  necessaiy  to  the  j  ustice  of  the  case.  The  next  fact  stated 
is,  that  this  trial  was  postponed  in  Trinity  term ;  it  is  not  pretended 
that  it  was  postponed  at  the  desire  of  the  crown,  nor  will  I  say  it 
was  at  the  desire  of  the  prisoner.  It  was  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  prisoner's  counsel ;  all  the  witnesses  for  the  crown  attended  at 
that  time.  So  it  rested  until  November ;  then  an  application  was 
made  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner  to  postpone  the  trial.  The  counsel 
for  the  crown  did  not  resist  the  application,  that  the  prisoner  might 
have  an  oppoitunity  of  vindicating  his  character  upon  a  fair  trial. 
The  trial  being  appointed  for  this  day,  the  Crown  Solicitor  states, 
that  on  the  17th  of  January  inst.  he  received  a  letter,  which  he 
believes  to  be  genuine,  from  Mr.  Cockayne,  stating  that  he  would 
set  out  the  next  day  from  London  for  Ireland  to  give  evidence  upon 
this  trial.  Then  the  Solicitor  states  that  he  received  a  letter  on 
Saturday,    the    24th  inst.   from    Mr.    Mounsey,    who   accompanied 


202  TRIAL   OF 

Cockayne  to  Holyhead,  where  the  Solicitor  swears  he  believes  Cock- 
ayne now  is.  The  letter  mentions,  that  Cockayne  had  come  so  far  in 
prosecution  of  his  intention  :  the  letter  contains  the  certificate  of  the 
surgeon  enclosed,  as  to  his  state  of  health.  It  is  said,  there  is  no 
affidavit  of  any  process  being  served.  Where  a  party  has  given  in- 
formations, and  is  bound  to  prosecute,  it  is  not  thought  necessary  to 
serve  any  process  to  compel  his  appearance,  because  he  has  entered 
into  a  recognizance  to  appear.  If  there  had  been  no  recognizance 
and  the  witness  lived  in  Ireland,  process  might  be  necessary ;  but  I 
do  not  know  the  effect  of  any  process  served  upon  a  witness  in 
England  to  attend  in  Ireland :  I  give  no  opinion  how  far  such  a  pro- 
cess would  be  obligatory  ;  but  where  a  party  is  bound  by  matter  of 
record,  it  would  be  absurd  to  call  upon  him  by  process.  The  Solicitor 
for  the  crown  says  he  has  used  his  best  endeavours  and  diligence  to 
have  the  prisoner  tried  with  all  possible  expedition.  This  application 
is  made  only  in  consequence  of  the  absence  of  Cockayne ;  if  the 
trial  be  postponed,  the  Solicitor  states  he  is  in  hopes  Cockayne  will 
attend  : — What  hopes  can  be  more  reasonable  where  the  party  has 
come  so  far  as  Holyhead  ?  If  the  Solicitor  for  the  crown  had  stated 
his  belief  without  any  reason  for  it,  could  it  be  so  strong  as  where 
he  has  assigned  his  reasons  ? — He  swears  the  witnesses  are  at  Holy- 
head, as  he  believes,  and  that  the  letters  are  genuine.  If  these 
matters  be  not  sufficient  to  postpone  the  ti'ial,  I  am  much  mistaken  ; 
I  have  mistaken  the  discretion  of  judges. 

Lord  Clonmei.,  Chief  Justice. — It  is  impossible  to  go  on  with 
the  trial  this  day.  The  rule  is  made  with  the  concurrence  of  my 
brethren.  This  is  an  application  to  postpone  the  trial  to  the  10th  of 
next  month — a  day  in  this  term — and  see  upon  what  ground  it  is 
made.  It  has  been  very  truly  said  (and  I  shall  ever  hold  it  as  my 
opinion,  and  have  done  so  for  twenty  years ;  the  first  time  I  took  it 
up  was  upon  consideration  with  Chief  Justice  Paterson,  when  the 
question  was  considered  by  a  variety  of  persons  in  the  case  of  the 
White-boys)  that  it  never  was  of  course,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  of 
course  to  postpone  a  trial  on  the  part  of  a  prosecutor,  and  one  reason 
was  this,  if  the  prosecutor's  witnesses  die,  what  they  have  said  is 
not  lost,  having  given  examinations  before;  if  the  prisoner's  wit- 
nesses die,  he  is  undone ;  and  therefore  it  is  not  to  be  considered  as 
a  matter  of  course ;  but  the  rule  in  those  cases  must  be  governed  by 
circumstances.  See  what  the  circumstances  here  are : — The  trial 
was  first  put  off,  not  as  against  the  prisoner,  but  to  accommodate 
him : — at  that  time,  Cockayne,  who  has  sworn  material  informations, 
attended  ;  the  Solicitor  for  the  crown  swears  more,  that  he  believes 
Cockayne  to  be  a  material  witness  ;  he  attended  as  such  ;  he  resides 
in  another  country  ;  he  came  over,  and  entered  into  a  recognizance, 
in  consequence  of  the  informations  he  had  given.  In  Michaelmas 
Term,  the  trial  was  postponed  upon  application  of  the  prisoner  ; — 
upon  what  ground? — that  he  wanted  a  material  witness — that  cir- 
cumstances prevented  his  having  his  evidence — that  he  was  not  pre- 
pared  Now,  there  is  an  affidavit  made,  stating  circumstances — 

what  circumstances  ?  That  Cockayne,  and  Mounsey,  two  witnesses, 
to  prove  their  sincerity  of  intention  in  coming  to  attend  the  trial,  set 
out  from  London,  and  are  at  Holyhead ;  and  though  the  certificate 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  203 

of  the  surgeon  might  be  stronger,  if  made  upon  oath,  yet  from  the 
letter  sworn  by  the  crown  Solicitor  to  be  genuine,  the  attendance  of 
the  witnesses  is  expected,  if  the  trial  be  postponed  to  the  latter 
end  of  the  term  ;  therefore  to  hurry  on  a  trial,  so  serious  to  the 
prisoner,  and  the  public,  could  have  the  appearance  of  levity.  K 
the  prisoner  be  not  guilty,  he  will  have  an  opportunity  of  clearing 
himself  fully ;  if  he  be  guilty,  we  should  not  defeat  justice  ;  where 
the  crown  was  ready  twice  to  prosecute,  we  ought  now  to  postpone 
it.     Let  the  trial  be  postponed  to  the  10th  of  February. 

Mr.  PoNsoNBY,  for  the  prisoner. — K  the  trial  be  postponed,  the 
prisoner  wishes  it  may  be  postponed  to  the  next  term.  A  material 
witness,  who  attends  for  him,  is  an  attorney  of  the  courts  at  West- 
minster, and  he  cannot  stay  here  during  the  whole  term. 

Lord  Clonmel,  Chief  Justice — I  think  we  must  yield  to  the 
prisoner's  application.  There  is  no  assurance  given  to  us,  positively, 
that  on  the  10th  of  next  month  there  will  be  a  trial,  or  that  the 
crown  can  be  ready,  nor  can  the  circumstances  justify  such  assertion, 
the  absence  of  the  witness  being  occasioned  by  sickness.  Then  it 
comes  to  this,  the  crown  is  not  ready,  and  it  is  not  stated  positively 
when  the  prosecutor  will  be  ready.  A  witness  for  the  prisoner  says 
that  it  is  indispensably  necessary  for  him  to  attend  at  Westminster, 
and  that  an  absence  from  the  court  there  during  an  entire  term,  will 
be  at  the  hazard  of  ruin  to  himself  and  his  clients — What  is  to  be 
done  ?  It  comes  to  a  question  of  convenience,  which  is  a  serious  one 
to  individuals,  but  we  cannot  balance  the  expence.  We  must  post- 
pone the  trial  until  next  term. 

The  trial  was  accordingly  postponed  to  the  second  day  of  Easter 
Term,  and  the  prisoner  was  remanded  to  Newgate. 


K  I  N  G'S    BENCH, 

Thursday,  AprU  23d,  1795 

COURT. 

Right  Hon.  the  Earl  of  Clonmel,  Chief- Justice, 

*Hon.  Mr.  Justice  Downes, 

Hon.  Ml*.  Justice  Chamberlaine. 

COUNSEL  FOR  THE  CROWN. 


Mr.  Frankeand,  and 
Mr.  Trench. 


Mr.  Attorney-Generax, 
Mr.  Prime- Serjeant, 
Mr.  Soeicitor-General, 

Agent — Thomas  Kemmis,  Esq.  Crown  Solicitor 


COUNSEL    assigned     TO     THE    PRISONER. 

Mr.  CuRRAN,  and  Mr.  Ponsonby. 

ASSISTANT  COUNSEL. 


Mr.  Burton,  and 
Mr.  Sampson. 


Mr.  R.  Guinness, 
Mr.  M'Nally, 
Mr.  Emmett, 

Agent — Edward  Crookshank  Keane,  Esq. 


The  prisoner  being  put  to  the  bar, 

Clerk  of  the  Crown. — William  Jackson,  are  you  ready  for  your 
trial ? 

Mr.  Jackson. — Yes. 

The  Sheriff  of  the  city  of  Dublin  was  then  ordered  to  return  his 
pannel,  which  he  did,  and  it  being  called  over,  fifty-one  attended. 

Clerk  of  the  Crown. — William  Jackson,  those  good  men  whom 
you  have  last  heard  called,  and  whom  you  now  see  in  the  box,  are  to 
be  sworn  upon  the  trial  of  your  life.  If  you  have  any  cause  of  chal- 
lenge to  them  or  either  of  them,  you  must  challenge  them  as  they 
come  to  the  book,  and  befoi'e  they  are  sworn,  otherwise  you  will  be 
too  late :  you  may  challenge  twenty  peremptorily,  and  as  many  more 
as  you  can  show  cause  for.  Prisoner  and  prosecutor  look  to  your 
challenges. 

Sir  Francis  Hutchinson,  Bart. — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the 
prisoner. 

John  Claudius  Beresford,  Esq. — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the 
prisoner. 

John  Exshaw,  Alderman — Sworn. 

Frederick  Trench,  Esq — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the  prisoner. 

John  Pentland,  merchant — Sworn. 

Richard  Cranfield,  merchant — Sworn. 

William  Humfrey,  merchant — Sworn. 

*  Hon.  Mr.  Justice  Boytl,  was  prevented  from  attending  by  indisposition. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  205 

Robert  Asliworth,  Esq. — Cliallengecl  peremptorily  by  the  prisoner. 

Thomas  Kinsley,  merchant — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the 
prisoner. 

George  Cowen,  merchant Objected  to  by  tr^.  -prisoner,  as  having 

expressed  an  opinion  npon  the  subject  of  the  trial'. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Establish  your  challenge. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — There  is  no  intention  of  taking  any  captious  objec- 
tion ;  but  if  this  gentleman  has  declared  any  sentiment  upon  the 
subject  of  the  trial 

Mr.  Cowen. — I  have  not  expressed  any  opinion  upon  the  subject 
of  the  trial,  nor  do  I  know  any  thing  of  it. 

He  was  then  sworn  without  any  further  objection. 

Samuel  Middleton,  merchant — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the 
prisoner. 

Stuckey  Simon,  Esq — Sworn. 

Robert    Walker,    merchant Challenged    peremptorily    by    the 

prisoner. 

John  Oldham,  merchant — Objected  to  by  the  Crown,  but  the 
objection  being  withdrawn,  he  was  sworn. 

James  Donovan,  merchant. — Sworn. 

Alexander  Clarke,  merchant Put  by  on  the  part  of  the  Crown. 

David  Weir,  merchant. — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the  prisoner. 

John  Ward,  the  elder,  merchant — Sworn. 

Mark  Bloxham,  merchant. — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the 
prisoner. 

John  Murray,  merchant — Ditto. 

John  Minchin,  merchant. — Ditto. 

William  Castles  HoUister,  merchant — Put  by  on  the  part  of  the 
Crown. 

John  Campbell,  merchant. — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the 
prisoner. 

Alan  Foster,  merchant — Sworn. 

John  Crosthwaite,  merchant — Challenged  peremptorily  by  the 
prisoner. 

John  Smith,  merchant. — Sworn. 

William  Edmondston,  merchant Put  by  on  the  part  of  the  Crown. 

Benjamin  Simpson,  merchant — Challenged  peremptoi'ily  by  the 
prisoner. 

James  Davis,  merchant — Ditto. 
Charles  Henry  Sirr,  Esq — Ditto. 

Thomas  White,  merchant — Put  by  on  the  part  of  the  Crown. 

Hugh  Cochran,  merchant Challenged  peremptorily  by  the  prisoner. 

Lewis  Hodgson,  merchant — Sworn. 

THE    JURY. 

John  Exshaw,  John  Oldham, 

John  Pentland,  James  Donavan, 

Richard  Cranfield,  John  Ward,  the  elder, 

William  Humfrey,  Alan  Foster, 

George  Cowen,  John  Smith, 

Stuckey  Simon,  Lewis  Hodgson, 

The  prisoner  was  then  given  in  charge  to  the  jury  by  the  Clerk  of 
the  Crown,  who  read  the  whole  indictment. 


206  TRIAL  OF 

Mr.  Trench  opened  the  pleadings. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — My  Lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
In  this  case  the  Rev.  "William  Jackson,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  a  clergy- 
man of  the  church  of  Ii'eland,  and  a  native  of  this  kingdom,  stands 
charged  with  high  treason.  He  is  charged  with  two  species  of  that 
crime  ;  one,  the  compassing  and  imagining  of  the  death  of  the  King  ; 
the  other,  that  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  namely,  to  the 
persons  executing  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  with  whom 
the  King  was  at  war.  The  court  will  inform  you,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  this  indictment  is  grounded  on  the  stat.  of  25  Ed.  3.  by 
which  to  imagine,  compass,  and  design  the  death  of  the  King  is 
declared  to  be  high  treason.  In  this  single  instance,  a  crime  intended, 
though  not  committed,  is  made  by  our  law  punishable  with  death ;  on 
account  of  the  interest  which  the  subjects  have  in  the  life  of  their 
chief  magistrate  the  King,  to  compass  his  death  is  guarded  in  this 
peculiar  way.  The  peace  and  happiness  of  society  depend  on  the 
preservation  of  his  life.  But  at  the  same  time  that  the  law  has  thus 
wisely  guarded  the  person  of  the  King  from  violence,  it  has  taken 
care  that  those  who  shall  be  charged  with  this  crime,  shall  not  be 
easily  or  lightly  found  guilty  of  it.  The  law  has  therefore  made  it 
necessary  that  the  criminal  intention  shall  be  manifested  by  an  overt 
act,  an  act  openly  done  and  plainly  proved,  by  which  the  intention 
of  the  party  to  commit  that  horrid  crime  shall  be  made  clear  and 
manifest.  On  this  species  of  treason  I  am  also  to  observe  to  you, 
that  to  constitute  it,  it  is  not  necessary  to  shew  that  the  party  accused 
had  an  intention  actually  to  put  the  King  to  death,  or  that  that  was 
the  immediate  object.  The  compassing  of  the  King's  death  does  not 
import  that  the  person  charged  intended  to  put  the  King  to  death ; 
but  if  he  intended  to  commit  any  act  leading  directly  or  in  its  con- 
sequences to  the  death  of  the  King,  it  is  settled  law  that  such  is  to  be 
considered  as  a  compassing  of  his  death.  As  for  instance,  to  conspire 
to  dethrone  the  King  ; — for  as  history  and  experience  shew,  to  dethrone 
the  King  leads  to  his  death.  So,  a  conspiring  or  design  to  imprison  the 
King.  The  distance  between  the  prison  of  a  King  and  his  grave  is 
small  indeed.  Therefore  to  support  the  charge  of  the  first  species  of 
treason,  viz.  compassing  the  death  of  the  King,  fourteen  overt  acts 
are  stated  in  the  indictment.  If  any  one  of  those  be  proved,  and  it 
be  such  as  to  show  an  intention  of  compassing  the  King's  death,  you 
will  find  the  prisoner  guilty  of  that  charge.  I  will  not  take  up  your 
time  and  that  of  the  Court  in  enumerating  particularly  all  the  several 
overt  acts.  I  will  however  mention  those  that  appear  to  me  most 
important.  It  is  charged  that  the  prisoner  consulted  with  several 
other  persons  to  induce  the  governing  powers  in  France  to  invade 
this  kingdom  for  the  purpose  of  dethroning  the  King ;  the  consultation 
of  the  prisoner  with  others  on  the  means  of  effecting  such  a  purpose 
is  an  act  whence  you  may  collect  the  preconceived  intention  of 
compassing  the  death  of  the  King ;  another  act  charged  is,  that  the 
prisoner  procured  a  statement  of  the  situation  of  Ireland  to  be  drawn 
up  and  put  into  the  post  office  to  be  sent  to  France  to  the  ruling 
powers  there,  to  induce  them  to  invade  this  kingdom,  and  thereby 
dethrone  the  King.  Another  act  charged  is,  that  the  prisoner  with 
divers  others  endeavoured  to  persuade  a  person  named  to  go  to  France, 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  207 

and  give  intelligence  to  the  ruling  powers  there,  to  induce  them  to 
invade  Ireland,  in  order  to  dethrone  the  King  and  overturn  his 
government.  Another  overt  act  laid  in  the  indictment,  is  his  endea- 
vouring to  persuade  another  person  to  go  with  the  same  view  to 
France.  It  is  likewise  laid  as  an  overt  act,  that  he  came  into  this 
kingdom  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  a  rebellion  to  dethrone  the  King. 
Other  overt  acts  are  laid  in  sending  several  letters  to  different  persons 
to  induce  France  to  invade  this  kingdom.  Now  if,  as  I  said  before, 
any  one  of  those  facts  be  proved,  the  intention  of  procuring  an 
invasion  will  be  established,  whence  it  follows  by  a  necessaiy  induction 
of  law  that  the  prisoner  is  guilty  of  the  crime  of  compassing  the 
King's  death. 

The  other  species  of  treason  charged  against  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar  is  that  of  adhei'ing  to  the  King's  enemies.  The  nature  of  this 
species  is  fully  and  clearly  expressed  in  the  very  terms  of  "adhering 
to  the  King's  enemies."  But  overt  acts  must  be  laid  of  that  also,  and 
in  the  indictment  the  same  fourteen  overt  acts  are  laid  as  applicable 
to  support  this  charge  as  are  laid  to  support  the  former.  It  needs  no 
argument  to  satisfy  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  if  a  man  endea- 
vours to  persuade  the  King's  enemies  to  invade  his  dominions,  and 
sends  intelligence  to  them  for  the  purpose  of  furthering  such  an 
attempt,  that  such  a  man  adheres  to  the  enemies  of  the  King. — Such 
are  the  crimes  charged  against  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  Whether  he 
be  guilty  of  both  or  either  of  them,  it  will  be  for  you  to  determine. 
You  are  now  about  to  discharge  a  sacred  and  an  awful  duty.  You 
have  on  the  one  hand  to  discharge  your  duty  to  your  King  and  to 
your  country.  You  are  to  take  care  that  if  the  party  be  really  guilty, 
he  be  found  guilty,  to  the  end  that  men  may  be  deterred  from  com- 
mitting crimes  of  the  last  magnitude — crimes  tending  to  destroy  the 
peace  and  security  of  society — to  wrest  from  us  all  that  can  make 
life  valuable. — On  the  other  hand  you  have  a  duty  not  less  sacred, 
that  of  protecting  the  innocent.  However  horrid  the  crime  be  in  its 
nature,  you  should  not  permit  yourselves  to  be  hurried  away  by  your 
feelings  or  your  passions  lightly  to  find  the  accused  guilty.  The 
more  dreadful  the  crime,  the  more  circumspect  and  deliberate 
ought  the  jury  to  be.  These  observations,  I  am  sure,  are  not  neces- 
sary to  be  made  to  the  jury  to  which  I  have  the  honour  of  addressing 
myself.  I  make  them  rather  as  a  discharge  of  my  public  duty,  than 
as  feeling  them  necessary  for  your  instruction. 

Having  thus  stated,  as  simply  and  clearly  as  I  am  capable,  the 
nature  of  the  crime,  it  now  becomes  my  province  to  lay  before  you 
the  facts  which  I  am  instructed  will  appear  in  evidence  before  you. 
In  doing  this  it  will  be  my  duty  to  state  these  facts  with  the  utmost 
plainness,  without  giving  them  any  colour  whatsoever  to  induce  you 
to  lean  against  the  prisoner.  I  state  the  facts  merely  that  you  may 
more  clearly  and  readily  comprehend  the  evidence  as  it  will  be  offered 
to  you.  The  case  itself  is  plain  and  simple.  It  is  not  a  species  of 
treason  which  is  to  be  collected  from  doubtful  facts  or  doubtful  evi- 
dence, or  to  be  collected  by  inference  from  a  multiplicity  of  compli- 
cated circumstances,  but  rests  on  very  simple  evidence  indeed. 

The  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  a  native  of  this  country.  He  had  early 
in  life  gone  to  reside  in  London,  where  he  continued  for  a  number  of 


208  TRIAL  OF 

years,  but  sometime  since,  the  exact  period  I  am  not  informed  of,  he 
went  to  reside  in  France.  He  was  there  for  a  considerable  time  after 
the  Revolution  took  place.  In  oi-der  that  you  may  understand  the 
meaning  of  some  papers  that  will  be  laid  in  evidence  before  you,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  state  the  connections  and  circumstances  of  several 
persons,  whose  names  will  frequently  occur  in  the  course  of  the  trial. 
In  the  years  1793  and  1794  there  was  resident  in  Paris  a  gentleman 
of  the  name  of  John  Holdford  Stone,  by  birth  an  Englishman,  and 
engaged  in  trade  in  the  city  of  Paris.  There  was  connected  with  him, 
whether  as  assistant  or  partner  I  do  not  exactly  know,  another  gen- 
tleman named  Benjamin  Beresford,  who  is  married  to  the  sister  of 
Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  Esq.,  formerly  of  this  country.  J.  H. 
Stone  has  a  brother  named  William,  who  in  1 793,  and  in  the  begin- 
ning of  1794  was  resident  in  London,  and  sometimes  at  a  small  villa 
called  Oldford,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  London.  He  is  in  the  coal 
trade,  and  is,  or  Avas  at  the  time  of  which  I  am  speaking,  in  partner- 
ship in  a  company  whose  firm  is  Lawrence  and  Co.,  resident  in 
Rutland  Place,  near  Blackfriars  Bridge,  London.  Towards  the  end 
of  1793,  or  beginning  of  1794,  the  prisoner  was  sent  from  Paris  by 
the  then  ruling  powers,  to  London,  for  the  purpose  of  learning  the 
state  of  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  disposition  of  its  inha- 
bitants, and  how  far  it  would  be  practicable  to  invade  that  country 
with  success  ;  and  further,  if  he  should  not  find  a  probability  of 
success  in  the  designs  entertained  of  invading  that  country,  he  should 
pass  into  Ireland  on  the  like  mission.  He  accordingly  set  out  from 
Paris,  accredited  by  John  H.  Stone  to  his  brother  William  Stone  in 
London,  who  had  been  by  letter  previously  informed  of  the  intention 
of  sending  this  gentleman  into  Great  Britain.  He  was  also  supplied 
with  some  letters ;  we  cannot  take  upon  us  to  say  how  many,  or  if 
more  than  two,  but  of  two  we  are  possessed — one  dii-ected  to  Mr. 
Home  Tooke,  the  other  to  a  Doctor  Crawford,  of  this  kingdom.  Mr. 
Jackson  arrived  in  London  in  January  or  February,  1794,  having 
passed  through  Hamburgh,  and  landed  at  Hull.  It  appears,  that 
immediately  on  his  arrival  he  waited  on  Mr.  William  Stone,  by  whom 
he  was  kindly  received,  and  with  whom  he  had  a  confidential  inter- 
course. While  he  remained  in  London  he  endeavoured  to  procure  as 
accurate  a  State  of  England  as  he  could,  I  mean  with  respect  to  the 
disposition  of  the  people  to  aid  the  French  if  they  should  make  an 
invasion,  and  to  re(!eive  from  them  the  embrace  of  fraternity.  Mr. 
Jackson  found  means  to  procure  a  state  of  that  country  in  the  respect 
I  mentioned,  to  be  drawn  for  his  information,  as  appears  by  a  person 
of  some  consideration,  and  the  information  which  he  received,  I 
believe  and  trust,  was  well  founded.  He  learned  that  the  people  of 
England  were  not  willing  to  receive  the  French,  and  that  if  they 
should  come,  they  would  find  ninety-nine  in  one  hundred  zea- 
lous to  rise  in  arms  against  them.  During  his  stay  in  London  Mr. 
Jackson  carried  on  his  correspondence  with  France  through  Mr.  W 
Stone.  On  his  arrival  in  London  he  renewed  an  acquaintance  which 
he  formerly  had  with  Mr.  John  Cockayne,  an  attorney  of  eminence 
residing  in  Lyon's  Inn  ; — he  procured  this  gentleman  to  direct  several 
letters  for  him  to  foreign  countries,  saying,  that  having  contracted 
debts  during  his  former  residence  in  England,   he  did  not  wish  his 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  209 

hand- writing  should  be  seen,  least  it  might  be  discovered  that  he  was 
in  England.  Mr.  Cockayne,  without  knowing  the  nature  of  those 
letters,  did  direct  them.  There  is  every  reason  to  apprehend  that 
those  letters  contained  a  communication  of  his  transactions  in  discharge 
of  that  treasonable  duty  on  which  he  had  been  sent.  Not  finding  that 
he  was  likely  to  succeed  in  Great  Britain,  he  was  desirous  to  make 
an  experiment  in  this  his  native  country.  During  the  time  of  his 
stay  in  London  he  passed  by  the  name  of  Jackson,  his  own  proper 
name,  assuming  however  the  character  of  an  American  merchant. 
He  communicated  to  Mr,  William  Stone  his  intention  of  coming  to 
Ireland,  and  desired  to  have  a  correspondence  with  him,  and  that  he 
Mr.  Stone  should  transmit  his  foreign  letters.  With  this  view  he 
furnished  Stone  with  a  paper  which  will  be  proved  to  be  in  his  own 
hand-writing,  explaining  the  manner  in  which  he  would  have  such 
foreign  letters  transmitted  to  his  foreign  correspondents.  This  paper 
will  deserve  your  particular  attention,  because  it  will  serve  clearly  to 
connect  many  of  the  circumstances  that  will  be  proved,  and  to  confirm 
and  support  the  other  evidence  that  will  be  offered.  [Here  Mr. 
Attorney- General  read  the  paper  of  directions.]  At  the  time  that 
this  paper  was  delivered,  the  prisoner  informed  William  Stone  that  he 
should  write  to  him  not  by  his  own  name,  but  by  that  of  Thomas 
Popkins.  While  this  proceeding  was  going  forward,  the  treasonable 
object  and  view  of  the  prisoner  was  darkly  intimated  to  Mr.  Cockayne. 
He  felt,  as  I  believe  every  gentleman,  every  man  of  common  sense 
must  have  felt  in  the  like  circumstances.  It  immediately  occurred  to 
him  that  the  letters  which  he  had  dii'ected  were  treasonable,  that  they 
had  passed  through  the  Post-office,  and  were  exposed  to  detection.  He 
stood  astonished  and  appalled  at  his  situation.  There  was  apparent 
evidence  of  ti-eason  against  himself.  Added  to  his  feelings  for  his  own 
personal  safety,  he  felt  the  danger  the  state  was  exposed  to.  He  deter- 
mined to  prevent  the  danger  impending  on  himself  and  his  countiy, 
and  he  disclosed  to  government  the  whole  of  what  he  knew  or 
suspected.  Government,  thus  aware  of  the  dangerous  practices  that 
were  on  foot,  did,  as  was  their  duty,  determine  to  counteract  the 
schemes  of  Mr.  Jackson,  and  to  bring  to  justice  if  possible,  the 
perpetrators  of  such  horrid  crimes.  Mr.  Cockayne  at  the  desire  of 
Mr.  Pitt  consented  to  accompany  Jackson  in  order  to  render  abortive 
his  wicked  purposes.  Towards  the  end  of  March,  Mr.  Jackson  set 
out  for  Dublin,  accompanied  by  Mr.  Cockayne.  They  arrived  the  1  st 
April  1794 :  on  their  arrival  they  lodged  at  a  house  called  Hyde's 
Coffee-house,  at  the  corner  of  Palace-row,  and  it  appears  that  Mr. 
Jackson  in  a  day  or  two  after  his  arrival  made  an  acquaintance  or 
renewed  an  old  one  with  a  gentleman  of  the  name  of  Leonard  M'Nally. 
Mr.  M'Nally  merely  no  doubt  from  that  hospitality  in  which  Irishmen 
are  never  deficient,  invites  the  two  strangers  to  dine  with  him,  and  as 
a  man  of  manners  always  does,  he  selected  an  agreeable  company  to 
meet  them.  Mr.  Simon  Butler  and  a  Mr.  Lewins  were  among  others 
present  at  this  entertainment ;  the  conversation  was  naturally  turned, 
by  the  gentleman  who  had  come  on  this  kind  mission,  to  the  state  of 
the  country.  Much  talk  there  was  about  the  discontented  state  of 
this  kingdom,  anxiously  did  he  inquire  how  far  the  people  would  be 
willing  to  rise,  if  there  should  be  an  invasion  by  the  French.     I  only 

p 


210  TRIAL   OF 

mean  to  say  that  such  was  the  turn  of  the  conversation  introduced  by 
Mr.  Jackson.  I  mean  not  to  charge  any  man  who  has  not  an  oppor- 
tunity of  defending  liimself.  Opinions  on  the  subject  were  delivered 
by  the  host  and  his  guests.  Mr.  Butler  held  that  though  there  were 
some  discontents  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  yet  that  the  gene- 
rality of  the  people  having  property  and  education  were  loyal  and  had 
a  considerable  influence  over  their  tenantry,  and  that  the  invaders 
would  be  foiled  in  the  attempt.  Other  gentlemen  entertained  different 
opinions.  During  this  conversation  something  was  said  of  Mr.  A.  H. 
Rowan,  then  in  prison  in  Newgate  for  publishing  a  seditious  libel. 
Mr.  Jackson  imagining  that  Mr.  Rowan  could  give  him  full  information 
on  the  subject  he  had  so  much  at  heart,  expressed  a  desire  to  be 
introduced  to  his  acquaintance.  Some  difficulty  there  was  both  with 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Rowan  and  others,  as  to  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Jackson  to  treat  at  all,  on  the  part  of  the  French  government.  Mr. 
Lewins  however  undertook  to  introduce  the  prisoner  to  Mr.  Rowan ; 
and  in  order  to  accredit  this  embassador  from  France,  Jacksan 
delivered  the  letters  which  he  brought  from  Paris  to  Mr.  Tooke  and 
Dr.  Crawford,  for  he  had  not  thought  proper  to  deliver  Tooke's 
letter ;  why  that  was  not  done  I  am  not  informed.  These  letters 
were  not  sealed,  and  the  pi'isoner  knew  the  contents  of  them.  That 
he  did  know  their  contents  is  demonstrable ;  if  he  had  not  read  them 
he  would  not  have  sent  them  to  Mr.  Rowan  to  establish  his  credit 
with  that  gentleman.  A  meeting  on  the  credit  of  these  letters  is  had 
between  Mr.  Rowan  and  the  prisoner.  What  passed  at  their  first 
interview  I  am  not  able  to  inform  you  ;  but  at  it  he  received  the 
letters  from  Mr.  Rowan  which  he  had  sent  by  Lewins,  and  about 
which  he  had  expressed  gi'eat  uneasiness  during  the  time  they  remained 
out  of  his  custody.  Another  meeting  appears  to  have  been  appointed 
between  them.  Mr.  Jackson  was  invited  to  breakfast  at  Mr.  Rowan's 
apartment  in  Newgate  to  meet  a  third  person — Mr.  Cockayne  accom- 
panied Mr.  Jackson — this  was  about  the  '25th  of  April.  Jackson  Avas 
to  meet  a  third  person  there  to  concert  the  means  of  sending  an  able 
and  trusty  negociator  to  the  French  government,  by  whom,  as  he 
expressed  it  in  one  of  his  letters,  more  could  be  done  in  a  short  time 
than  by  a  thousand  letters.  The  meeting  took  place,  the  persons 
present  Avere  Jackson,  Rowan,  Cockayne,  and  Mr.  Theobald  Wolfe 
Tone.  The  object  of  the  meeting  was  to  prevail  on  Tone  to  go  to 
France  with  the  view  of  communicating  to  the  Ruling  PoAvers,  the 
Avillingness  of  this  country  to  rise  and  overset  the  government,  and 
to  point  out  the  best  means  of  effecting  a  descent  on  this  kingdom. 
It  was  thought  that  nothing  could  more  effectually  tend  to  attain 
the  object  that  these  conspirators  had  in  vicAV,  than  to  send  a  man 
of  sense  and  ability  accredited  by  a  person,  in  their  estimation  of 
such  high  consequence  as  Mr.  RoAvan,  to  Paris,  there  to  con\'erse 
with  the  French  Ministry,  and  persuade  them  of  the  practicability  of 
their  scheme.  At  this  meeting  a  paper  Avas  produced  and  read,  and 
which  will  be  laid  before  you,  draAvn  up  at  the  desire  of  Jackson, 
and  importing  to  be  a  statement  of  the  disposition  of  the  people  of  Ire- 
land ;  then  it  was  proposed  to  send  Mr.  Tone  to  France — Jackson 
endeavoured  to  persuade  him  to  go — Tone  made  several  objections  ;  he 
had  a  Avife  and  three  children — a  debt  was  due  to  him,  part  of  a 


THE  BEV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  211 

reward  for  something  which  he  had  done  for  the  Catholics — this  debt 
would  be  lost  if  he  should  go  to  France.  Rowan  encouraged  him  to 
go,  assuring  him  his  wife  and  children  should  be  attended  to  and 
protected.  Tone  hesitated — he  expressed  apprehensions  of  the  recep- 
tion he  should  meet  at  Paris,  and  of  the  reward  he  might  receive — ■ 
he  even  had  fears  that  he  might  never  return  to  Ireland — Jackson 
encourages  him,  anxiously  endeavours  to  remove  his  fears  and  excite 
his  hopes  ;  something  he  hinted  that  the  Catholic  debt  would  be 
made  good  ;  he  assured  the  hesitating  Tone  that  the  French  were  a 
noble  and  generous  people,  that  he  might  depend  on  being  treated 
with  the  utmost  liberality,  at  the  same  time  admitting  that  he  had 
not  authority  to  oiFer  a  specific  sum.*  Mr.  Tone  at  this  time  was 
under  the  necessity  of  going  to  the  assizes  of  Drogheda,  and  after  his 
return  he  at  a  second  meeting  of  the  same  persons  altogether  declined 
to  undertake  the  journey  to  Paris.  Another  able  negociator  must  be 
provided.  A  Dr.  Reynolds  presented  himself  to  the  mind  of  Rowan 
as  a  fit  person,  and  a  meeting  is  had  at  which  the  Doctor  is  present. 
The  Doctor  is  applied  to.  He  is  at  first  willing  to  go,  but  on  a  little 
reflection  he  thinks  the  expedition  rather  hazardous.  He  recollects 
that  he  understands  not  one  word  of  the  French  language  nor  of  the 
manners  of  those  countries  through  which  he  was  to  pass.  However 
the  eloquence  of  Mr.  Rowan  was  exerted,  Reynolds  yields  to  his  per- 
suasion, the  route  was  settled,  but  again  the  Doctor  reflects,  hesitates 
and  at  length  determines  not  to  hazard  the  undertaking.  While  these 
consultations  were  going  forward,  Jackson  was  employed  in  making 
communications  to  his  correspondents  and  principals  in  France,  of 
what  he  was  doing  here  and  how  far  he  was  likely  to  attain  the 
object  of  his  wishes.  I  have  stated  that  he  arrived  the  1st  April. 
Previous  to  that,  government  here  being  informed  by  the  British 
Minister  of  his  object,  the  Irish  government  did,  as  they  ought,  take 
every  possible  precaution  to  come  to  a  knowledge  of  all  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  emissary,  and  with  this  view,  being  apprised  through  Mr. 
Cockayne  of  the  addresses  of  Jackson's  foreign  correspondents  abroad, 
gave  orders  to  the  post-office,  as  by  law  they  are  warranted,  and  by 
their  duty  bound  to  do,  to  open  letters  of  so  dangerous  a  tendency. 
Mr.  Jackson  soon  after  his  arrival  in  Dublin,  on  the  5th  April  wrote 

*  No  prosecutor  could  be  more  humane  than  Arthur  Wolfe,  nor  less  anxious  to 
state  anything  too  strongly  against  accused  parties,  and  therefore  the  statement 
in  this  place  with  regard  to  Tone  must  be  considered  an  unintentional  error.  It 
certainly  is  not  quite  correct.  Tone  thus  mentions  the  circumstance — "  1  then 
took  an  opportunity  (on  the  difficulty  of  a  proper  person  being  found  to  go  to 
France  being  stated,  and  it  being  mentioned  that  no  one  was  in  all  respects  so  fit 
as  myself)  to  recapitulate  pretty  nearly  what  I  said  in  all  the  preceding  conver- 
sations on  the  general  state  of  the  country  ;  and  I  then  added,  that  with  regard 
to  my  going  to  France,  I  was  a  man  of  no  fortune  ;  that  my  sole  dependence  was 
on  my  profession ;  that  I  had  a  wife  and  three  children,  whom  I  dearly  loved, 
solely  depending  on  me  for  support ;  that  I  could  not  go  and  leave  them  totally 
unprovided  for,  and  trusting  to  the  mercy  of  Providence  for  existence  ;  and 
that  consequently  with  regard  to  me,  the  going  to  France  was  a  thing  totally 
impossible.  They  all  agreed  that  what  I  said  was  reasonable,  but  there  was  no 
offer  of  money  or  pecuniary  assistance  of  any  kind  held  out  to  induce  me  to  change 
my  determination ;  a  circumstance  I  mention  merely  because  I  understand  it  is 
believed  that  some  such  was  made." — Tone's  Life,  1  vol.,  p.  119.  American 
Edition. 


212 


TKIAL   OF 


to  Mr.  W.  Stone  of  Oldford,  announcing  to  him  his  arrival  in  Ireland, 
apologizing  for  not  writing  sooner,  telling  him  he  found  many  kind 
friends,  and  desiring  him  not  to  make  any  use  of  the  addresses  he  had 
left  him,  the  price  and  nature  of  the  articles  being  (as  the  letter 
expresses  it)  entirely  changed.  You  will  perceive  that  terms  are 
made  use  of  strangely  and  enigmatically,  expressions  of  trade  are 
employed  where  no  trade  was,  but  in  truth  significant  of  the  political 
objects  on  which  Jackson  was  employed.  Here  you  will  see  by  the 
context  what  the  meaning  of  the  writer  was.  About  this  time  a  new 
revolution  had  taken  place  in  Paris.  Danton  had  been  assassinated 
by  the  opposite  party,  and  this  is  the  change  in  the  articles  to  which 
the  letter  alludes;  and  this  letter  is  signed  Thomas  Popkins.  To 
this  letter  Stone  wrote  an  answer  dated  11th  Api-il  in  which  he 
acknowledges  the  receipt  of  it.  Jackson  wrote  a  letter  dated  24th 
April  to  Mr.  Beresford  at  Paris,  and  procui-ed  Cockayne  to  copy  it. 
This  also  is  signed  Thomas  Popkins.  In  it  he  says,  "  you  are  re- 
quested to  see  Madget  directly,  and  inform  him  that  this  evening  the 
opinions  of  two  eminent  counsel  are  sent  to  him  ;"  throughout  making 
use  of  legal  terms,  as  if  he  was  conducting  some  law  suit.  Madget, 
in  this  letter,  means  the  marine  minister  of  France.  The  estate 
mentioned  in  the  letter  is  the  kingdom  of  Ireland.  There  is  a  Nota 
Bene  at  the  end  of  the  letter  which  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  only  as 
it  serves  to  add  further  authenticity  to  the  letter.  Another  letter 
will  be  laid  before  you  which  sets  out  with  the  date  of  21st  April 
but  which  was  not  closed  till  24th  April.  It  is  to  William  Stone  and 
in  the  prisoner's  hand-writing,  but  the  superscription  is  of  Cockayne's 
writing.  He  says  "  I  am  glad  the  patterns  (meaning  letters  formerly 
sent  to  this  Stone)  have  reached  the  persons."  The  outrider  men- 
tioned in  this  letter  means  the  post-oiRce.  In  the  former  letter  the 
opinion  to  be  sent  was  that  of  counsel,  in  a  matter  of  law,  in  this 
the  opinion  is  that  of  a  manufacturer  in  a  matter  of  trade,  and  yet 
both  letters  speak  of  the  same  opinion,  and  the  opinion  means  the 
state  of  Ireland  Avhich  I  have  before  mentioned.  Mr.  Nicholas  in 
this  letter  is  used  to  denote  the  war  minister  of  France,  and  in  some 
of  the  letters  perhaps  signifies  France  itself.  It  is  plain  that  the 
matter  which  the  statement  mentioned  in  this  letter  was  to  contain 
was  of  the  same  nature  with  the  paper  drawn  up  in  England,  for  it 
refers  to  it  and  this  was  neither  a  law  case  nor  an  opinion  on  trade, 
but  a  political  discussion.  You  will  perceive  how  little  able  this  man 
was,  as  I  believe  any  man  Avould  be,  to  carry  on  a  subterfuge  of  this 
kind  with  success.  He  confounds  the  terms  he  uses,  he  mixes  and 
confuses  characters  and  things,  and  he  shews  manifestly  that  he  was 
anything  but  Avhat  he  pretended  to  be.  In  this  he  says  that  he  should 
set  out  for  Cork  in  a  few  days.  Upon  the  same  day  Jackson  put  into 
the  post-oflice  two  copies  of  that  State  of  Ireland  called  in  his  letter 
a  state  of  the  case,  and  which  has  been  four  times  read  to  you  from 
the  record.  I  am  not  at  present  precisely  informed,  nor  is  it  indeed 
material  in  whose  writing  those  copies  are.  One  of  these  copies  he 
directed  to  go  by  Hamburgh,  the  other  by  Amsterdam.  One  of  them 
is  in  a  cover  mai-ked  with  a  large  cross  on  the  outside  exactly  corres- 
ponding with  the  instructions  given  to  William  Stone,  put,  as  I  am 
instructed,  on  the  paper  by  the  prisoner  himself.     This  is  enclosed  in 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  213 

another  covei*  directed  to  Monsieur  Dandebuscaille,  at  Amsterdam, 
and  tlien  another  cover  encloses  all,  directed  to  Messrs.  Texier, 
Angely  and  Massac,  at  Amsterdam.  All  the  superscriptions  are  by 
Cockayne,  and  on  the  inside  of  the  first  cover  are  written  these  words, 
"  remember  me  to  Laignelot  and  family,"  also  in  Cockayne's  hand- 
writing but  dictated  to  him,  as  the  superscriptions  were,  by  the 
prisoner.  I  shall  not  take  up  your  time  in  reading  this  paper.  It  is 
sufficient  for  me  to  state  that  it  is  a  manifest  disclosure  to  the  enemy 
of  the  supposed  state  of  this  country,  inviting  them  to  land  on  its 
coasts  and  pointing  out  what  was  fit  and  necessary  to  be  done  by 
them  to  effect  that  design.  This  evidence  applies  to  both  charges, 
that  of  compassing  the  King's  death  and  that  of  adhering  to  his 
enemies,  and  is  an  overt  act  of  each  treason.  The  other  copy  of  this 
paper  is  enclosed  in  a  cover  marked  without  with  a  large  cross,  and 
that  is  enclosed  in  a  cover  to  Monsieur  Chapeaurouge,  at  Hamburgh, 
and  in  the  first  cover  are  written  "  remember  me  to  Laignelot  and  all 
friends."  The  cover  is  directed  and  these  words  written  by  Cockayne, 
by  Jackson's  direction  and  in  his  presence.  These  superscriptions 
you  will  observe,  and  it  demands  attention,  accord  precisely  with  the 
addresses  left  with  AVilliam  Stone  by  Jackson  when  he  left  London. 
The  papers  were  put  into  the  post-office,  and  there  they  were  by 
order  of  government  intercepted.  I  have  omitted  to  mention  that 
William  Stone  signed  his  letters  to  Jackson,  W.  Enots,  which  is 
Stone  reversed,  a  circumstance  of  much  weight.  Do  innocent  mer- 
chants engaged  in  an  ordinary  mercantile  ti'ansaction  use  assumed 
names  ?  Why,  if  no  treason  in  the  correspondence,  does  Jackson 
write  himself  Popkins  and  Stone  reverse  his  name  ?  Mr.  Jackson  on 
28th  of  April  was  arrested  by  a  warrant  fi'om  my  Lord  Chief- Justice 
on  a  charge  of  high  treason.  He  intended  on  that  day  to  have  set 
out  for  Cork,  as  he  had  mentioned  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Mr.  Stone. 
The  objects  of  his  journey  to  Cork  were  first  to  examine  the  state  of 
the  country,  and  next  to  procure  some  person  to  supply  provisions 
for  the  ruling  powers  in  France.  He  was  in  bed  at  the  moment  of  his 
arrest,  and  by  the  bed  side  stood  a  table  on  which  were  several  papers. 
These  papers  were  seized,  and  they  will  be  laid  before  you,  for  we 
wish  you  to  be  possessed  of  every  circumstance  that  can  elucidate  the 
subject ;  among  these  was  found  the  letter  from  Stone  to  Jackson  and 
also  the  letter  from  J.  H.  Stone  in  Paris  to  Tooke,  speaking  in  the 
sti'ongest  terms  of  the  intention  of  the  French  to  invade  this  country. 
There  was  also  found  a  note  from  Rowan  respecting  the  disappoint- 
ment he  received  from  the  non-attendance  of  a  third  person  at  one 
of  their  meetings,  and  a  note  fi'om  Tone  excusing  hunself  from  his 
attending.  I  shall  not  go  more  minutely  into  the  nature  of  the 
evidence  at  present.  It  will  appear  to  you  gentlemen  of  the  Jury, 
that  the  prisoner  came  from  France  to  prociu-e  intelligence  to  be 
!  conveyed  to  the  enemy,  and  that  he  did  while  here  use  his  utmost 
'  exertions  to  invite  and  excite  the  enemy  to  invade  this  country. 
When  you  shall  weigh  and  put  together  the  circumstances  that  will 
be  proved,  and  compare  the  whole  scope  of  the  evidence,  you  cannot 
be  at  a  loss  to  determine  what  the  object  of  this  man's  mission  was, 
and  perhaps  the  dark  nature  of  some  of  these  papers  will  carry  a 
demonstration  more  striking  than  plainer  terms.     Thus  gentlemen,  I 


214  TRIAL  OF 

have  stated  the  great  outlines  of  this  case,  having  no  other  view  than 
to  render  the  evidence  as  it  shall  be  offered,  more  intelligible.  I  have 
studiously  avoided  all  colouring  and  everything  that  can  inflame  the 
passions.  I  have  in  acting  thus,  I  hope  discharged  the  duty  I  owe  at 
once  to  my  King,  my  country  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  and  I  now 
leave  the  matter  on  the  whole  of  the  evidence  to  you,  being  perfectly 
convinced,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  your  inclination  as  it  is  your  duty 
to  investigate  the  charge  with  the  most  minute  attention,  and  that 
you  will  bring  in  a  verdict  founded  solely  on  the  evidence,  at  once 
remembering  the  duty  that  is  due  to  the  society  in  which  we  live, 
and  to  the  prisoner  upon  whose  life  you  are  shortly  to  pronoimce  that 
verdict. 

The  Attorney-General  sat  down,  but  rose  to  say  that  he  ought 
to  have  mentioned  that  Stone  of  Oldford  was  ai'rested  in  London  soon 
after  the  arrest  of  Jackson  here,  and  that  Jackson's  letter  of  the  5  th 
of  April,  and  the  paper  of  addresses  was  found  among  Stone's  papers 
in  his  house  at  Oldford.* 

John  Cockayne,  examined  by  the  Attorney-General. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him?     A.  Ten  years  and  upwards. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  has  his  residence  been  for  the  last  four 
years?     A.  I  believe  in  France. 

Q.  Your  belief  is  not  evidence  ;  did  you  ever  hear  him  say  where 
he  had  resided  ?  A.  I  have  heai'd  him  say  that  he  had  resided  in 
France  latterly.  I  have  missed  him  from  England  two  or  three  years. 

Lord  Clonmel Can  you  ascertain  from  information  given  by  the 

prisoner,  how  long  he  had  lived  in  France  ?  A.  I  cannot  say ;  I 
know  he  went  from  England  upon  the  Duchess  of  Kingston's 
business. 

Mr.  Attorney- General — When  did  he  return  last  to  England? 
A.  I  cannot  tell  the  very  day  he  returned  to  England,  but  it  was 
some  time  in  January  or  February,  1794. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  after  his  return  where  he  had  been  ?  A.  He 
said  he  had  been  in  France. 

Q.  Did  he  say,  whence  he  had  come  ?     A.  From  France. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  remain  in  England  on  that  occasion  ?  A.  I 
should  think  about  two  months,  rather  under  than  over. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  England  do  you  reside  ?  A.  I  reside  in  Lyon's 
Inn. 

Q.  Your  profession  ?     A.  An  attorney. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  England  did  the  prisoner  reside  ?  A.  He  had 
lodgings  at  the  Buffaloe  Tavern,  Bloomsbury-square. 

Q.  Had  you  any  intercourse  with  him  during  that  time  ?  A.  Con- 
stant. 

Q.  Had  you  any  reason  to  know  upon  what  business  or  object  he 
was  engaged  during  the  time  of  his  remaining  in  London,  or  what 
brought  him  from  Fi'ance  ?  A.  I  cannot  particularly  mark  any  period 
to  give  a  precise  answer  to  that  question  ;  if  you  point  out  any  period 
of  time,  I  may  answer  you. 

*  Slone  was  tried  for  high  treason  and  acquitted 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  215 

Q.  Did  he  employ  you  to  do  any  business  for  him  ?  A.  I  did 
something  for  him  in  his  private,  his  mercantile  aiFairs. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  What  do  you  mean  by  his  private  affairs  ? 
A.  I  mean  money  matters ;  in  the  capacity  of  a  friend  and  an 
attorney. 

Mr.  Attorney-General When  did  he  leave  London  ?  A.  The 

latter-end  of  March,  1794,  I  think. 

Q.  Who  accompanied  him  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  did  you  travel  ?  A.  We  came  together,  I  think  in  the 
mail-coach. 

Q.  Whither  were  you  going  ?     A.  We  were  destined  for  Dublin. 

Q.  Now  Sir,  what  was  your  inducement  to  accompany  the  pri- 
soner ?  A.  My  inducement  was  to  counteract  any  scheme  or  plan 
that  he  had  in  agitation,  as  I  thought  that  he  had  when  I  left  Eng- 
land, of  providing  France  with  necessaries  and  articles,  which  were 
prohibited  from  being  exported  thither  from  this  country. 

Q.  What  reason  had  you  to  suppose  he  had  such  a  scheme  ?  A. 
Conversations  which  I  had  with  him  in  England. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  What  do  you  mean  by  prohibited  articles  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  specify  what  articles  are  or  are  not 
prohibited,  not  having  looked  into  the  act,  but  I  understand  it  to  mean 
provisions. 

Q.  How  do  yovi  understand  that?  A.  By  conversations  I  had 
with  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — Will  you  mention  what  those  conver- 
sations were  that  you  have  spoken  of?  A.  I  should  find  great 
difficulty  in  answering  you  as  to  any  one  conversation  ;  I  cannot 
answer  you  with  precision  as  to  any  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — Mention  the  general  purport  of  them. 

Mr.  Curran. — With  great  deference,  I  conceive  that  evidence  of 
this  kind  is  not  admissible — for  a  witness  to  state  to  the  Court  what 
he  supposes  to  be  the  genei'al  purport  of  a  number  of  conversations, 
not  one  of  which  he  declares  he  can  state  with  any  kind  of  precision. 
I  conceive  that  if  a  man  is  to  be  affected  by  anything  that  he  says, 
the  Court  and  the  Jury  are  to  know  what  he  says ;  but  this  kind  of 
inference  is  not  legal  evidence,  nor  can  any  man  be  affected  by  a 
general  conclusion  formed  by  a  witness  from  conversations  which  the 
witness  does  not  pretend  to  state. 

Mr.  Attorney-General This  is  new  doctrine  to  me — the  wit- 
ness is  going  to  say  what  was  the  general  purport  of  the  prisoner's 
design-^(to  the  witness)  you  say  you  came  from  London  accompanying 
Mr.  Jackson,  to  prevent,  if  you  could,  the  intention  you  apprehended 
he  had  of  sending  prohibited  articles  to  France — did  you  collect  that 
intention  from  conversations  you  had  with  him  ?     A.  I  did. 

Mr.  Curran. — Well,  since  this  evidence  is  pressed,  I  must  call  on 
the  Court  to  decide. 

Lord  Clonmel. — He  has  not  yet  gone  too  far  ;  I  think  he  says 
that  he  understood  it  from  conversations  with  the  prisoner,  none  of 
which  he  can  pai'ticularly  state  :  this  is  evidence,  but  it  goes  to  his 
credit. 

Attorney-General — When  did  Mr.  Jackson  arrive  in  Dublin  ? 
A.  I  believe  on  the  2d  or  3d  of  April. 


216  TRIAL    OF 

Q.  Where  did  you  lodge  ?  A.  In  Dame-street,  at  Hyde's  coffee- 
house. 

Q.  Were  you  invited  to  dinner  anywhere  shortly  after  your  arrival  ? 
A.  Yes,  to  Counsellor  M'Nally's. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  who  the  company  were  there  ?  A.  A  Mr. 
Simon  Butler,  and  /  think  a  Mr.  Lewins. 

Q.  Now  ai-e  you  sure  whether  Mr.  Lewins  was  there  or  not? 
A.  I  am  not  certain  whether  he  dined,  but  I  am  sure  he  was  there  in 
the  course  of  the  day — /  think. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Lewins  there  that  day  ?  A.  If  it  was  not  that  day 
I  saw  him  there,  I  did  not  see  him  there  at  all ;  but  /  think  I  saw 
him  there. 

Lord  Clonmell,. — Recollect  yourself — Did  you  see  a  man  of  the 
name  of  Lewins  there  or  not  ?  Come  to  that  point.  A.  /  think  I 
did,  but  I  cannot  positively  swear  ;  but  I  saw  him  several  times. 

Q.  Is  Lewins  a  man  of  any  profession  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Attorney- General. — Who  else  was  there  ?  A.  I  do  not  recol- 
lect any  others. 

Q.  What,  did  you  go  alone  ?     A.  No  ;  Mr.  Jackson  was  there. 

Q.  Did  he  make  any  particular  enquiries  that  day  ;  what  was  the 
scope  of  the  conversation  ?  A.  The  scope  of  the  conversation  was 
general ;  the  common  conversation  at  dinner ;  it  entered  on  politics 
at  last. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  particular  conversation  ?  A.  It  is  very 
hard  for  me  to  answer  with  the  precision  with  which  I  ought  on  oath 
the  particular  conversations  which  took  place  among  a  set  of  men 
who  were,  perhaps,  drinking.     I  have  not  a  veiy  retentive  memory. 

Q.  You  say  it  turned  on  politics — what  politics  ?  A.  The  general 
politics  of  the  day,  and  also  the  politics  relative  to  the  Irish  nation. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  passed  relative  to  the  Irish  nation  ?  or 
any  part  of  that  conversation  as  coming  from  the  prisoner  ?  A.  I 
should  have  great  difficulty  in  stating  the  precise  words  that  Mr. 
Jackson  said,  or  Mr.  M'Nally  said,  or  Mr.  Lewins  said,  or  Mr  Butler 
said,  for  I  cannot  say  what  one  said  and  what  another ;  but  if  it  is 
put  to  me  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  what  Mr.  Jackson  said,  I  will 
answer. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY — I  object  to  that  evidence  ;  the  distinction  that  I 
make  is  this  ;  the  witness  cannot  say  that  to  the  best  of  his  recollection 
Mr.  Jackson  said  so  and  so  ;  he  must  swear  that  he  did  substantially 
say  so,  and  then  he  may  speak  to  the  best  of  his  recollection  what  the 
words  were. 

Attorney-General. — Can  you  recollect  the  substance  and  pur- 
port of  what  Jackson  said  at  that  meeting  ?  A.  I  don't  think  that  I 
can  answer  that  question. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  you  can't  tell  the  purport  of  what  'Mi:  Jackson 
said  at  that  meeting  ?     A.  I  cannot  say  precisely. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  the  purport  and  substance  of  what  Jackson 
said  ?  A.  Not  of  what  Mr.  Jackson  in  particvxlar  said :  I  might 
recollect  the  general  purport  of  the  conversation  ;  but  I  shall  then 
be  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court  how  far  it  affects  the  prisoner ;  for  I 
cannot  swear  what  ]\Ir.  M'Nally  said  or  what  Mr.  Lewins  said  or  what 
Mr.  Butler  said,  they  were  all  engaged  in  the  conversation. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  217 

Q.  You  said  the  conversation  touched  on  the  politics  of  the  Irish 
nation  ;  what  politics  ? 

Mr.  PoNsoNBY — I  beg  the  witness  may  understand  from  the  Court 
that  he  must  speak  positively  from  his  present  recollection  of  the 
subject  of  the  conversation  of  the  company,  and  that  the  prisoner 
joined  in  the  substance  of  such  conversation,  because  otherwise  it  was 
not  the  conversation  of  the  prisoner. 

Lord  Clonmel — I  feel  it  as  you  state  it — either  he  must  say  what 
it  was  substantially,  or  that  there  was  a  conversation  substantially  to 
this  amount. 

Attorney-General, — You  have  said  Jackson  joined  in  the 
conversation — in  what  respect  did  the  conversation  relate  to  Irish 
politics  ?  A.  I  believe  it  went  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  some  part  of 
the  kingdom  with  some  measures.  I  am  not  of  this  country,  my  Lords, 
and  know  but  little  of  its  politics — I  have  never  troubled  myself 
about  them,  till  this  business  brought  me  among  them — I  am  afraid 
I  shall  be  found  but  a  bad  repeater  of  them. 

Q.  What  dissatisfactions  ? — recollect  what  further  passed.     A.  It 

went  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  some  part  of  the  kingdom,  and (a 

pause).  I  cannot  recollect  at  this  moment — my  spirits  are  so  agitated 
at  this  moment  that  I  cannot  recollect — I  am  very  sorry  to  detain  the 
Court — I  have  really  lost  every  idea  of  where  I  was. 

Q.  Were  any  other  politics  talked  of?  A.  I  don't  believe  there 
were  any. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  further  conversation  about  politics  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAN — I  object  to  that  question ;  the  witness  has  already 
said  there  was  no  further  conversation  on  the  subject — the  witness  is 
produced  on  the  part  of  the  Crown  ;  the  answer  to  the  question  is 
simple  ;  either  he  recollects  or  he  does  not ;  but  it  is  not  usual  to 
assist  his  recollection  by  summing  up  what  had  gone  before. 

Lord  Clonmel — I  see  not  the  •  difference  on  what  side  he  was 
produced  ;  if  you  rely  on  the  summing  up  of  what  he  said  before, 
stand  upon  that. 

Attorney-General — Do  you  recollect  any  conversation  between 
Mr.  Jackson  and  Mr.  Lewins  at  anv  time  ?  A.  At  any  time  ? 
Yes.  .         ^ 

Q.  Where  and  when  ?     A.  At  Hyde's  coffee-house. 

Q.  In  what  chamber  ?     A.  I  believe  in  that  where  I  slept. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  what  that  conversation  was  ?  A.  That  was 
as  to  Mr.  Lewins  asking  Mr.  Jackson  for  some  written  documents  or 
authorities,  that  he  might  produce  them  to  Mr.  Rowan,  in  order  that 
Mr.  Rowan  might  with  confidence  talk  to  Mr.  Jackson. 

Q.  Who  is  the  Mr.  Rowan  you  speak  of?  A.  Mr.  Hamilton 
Rowan,  I  think  they  called  him. 

Q.  AVhei-e  was  he  at  that  time  ?     A.  In  Newgate. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  Mr.  Lewins  and  Mr.  Jackson  had  any 
conversation  respecting  Mr.  Rowan  before  ?     A.  Cannot  say  to  that. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  that  Mr.  Lewins  came  to  ask  Jackson  had  he 
any  written  document  that  he  might  produce  to  Rowan  to  convince 
him  he  might  talk  with  confidence  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  answer  did  Jackson  give  to  that  request  ?  A.  I  believe 
he  gave  him  some  paper. 


218  TRIAL   OF 

Q.  Did  you  see  whether  he  gave  any  ?  A.  I  cannot  swear  that  I 
saw  him  deliver  the  papers  into  his  hand. 

Q.  Did  Jackson  tell  you  whether  he  had  delivered  them  ?  A.  He 
did  tell  me  that  he  had  delivered  some  papers  to  Lewins,  and  that  he 
wished  he  had  them  again. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  why  he  wished  to  have  them  again  ?  A.  He 
said  he  would  not  trust  them  with  Lewins  if  he  had  them  back. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  those  papers  were  ?     A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  ever  got  them  back  ?  A.  I  believe 
he  did. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  tell  you  whether  he  did  or  not  ?  A.  Not  directly 
in  those  words. 

Q.  In  what  words  then  ?  A.  I  can  only  say  I  believe  he  did  get 
them  back  again,  but  I  cannot  swear  that  Mr.  Jackson  said  "  Mr. 
Lewins  has  given  me  these  papers."  I  have  eveiy  reason  to  believe 
that  he  did  get  them  back. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  how  soon  after  your  arrival  this  conversation 
was  ?     A.  Can  you  tell  me  the  date  of  our  arrival  ? 

Mr.  Attorney- General. — I  am  not  to  tell  you  anything. 

Witness. — We  arrived  on  the  second  or  third,  and  I  should  suppose 
it  was  four  or  five  days  after,  but  I  can't  speak  positive. 

Q.  Had  Jackson  any  interview  with  Rowan  ?     A.  He  had, 

Q.  When  had  he  the  first?  A.  Do  you  ask  me  in  point  of 
date  ? 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — If  you  recollect  how  soon  after  the 
conversation  with  Lewins  ? 

A.  I  believe  a  day  or  two  after  the  conversation  with  Lewins  ? 

Q.  You  believe! A.  I  may  have  hurried   myself  in  saying 

believe  ;  I  know  that  he  had  an  interview. 

Q.  Were  you  present  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Had  he  none  previous  to  that  that  you  were  present  at  ?  A.  I 
believe  he  had  ;  if  that  be  not  evidence,  I  cannot  say  more. 

Q.  Did  Jackson  say  he  had  an  interview  ?  A.  He  told  me  he  had 
seen  Mr.  Rowan. 

Q.  That  was  before  you  were  present  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  either  a  day  or  two  after  Lewins  called  for  the  papers  ? 
A.  It  was. 

Q.  Did  Jackson  tell  you  what  passed  between  him  and  Rowan  at 
that  interview,  or  any  part  of  it  ?  A.  He  told  me  he  was  much 
satisfied  with  Mr.  Rowan  ;  that  his  manners  were  very  much  those 
of  a  gentleman.     I  recollect  nothing  more. 

Q.  Did  Jackson  tell  you  whether  he  was  to  see  Rowan  again  or 
not  ?     A.  He  said  he  was. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  when  that  meeting  was  to  be,  and  what  the 
object  of  it  was  ?  A.  I  don't  think  he  said  what  it  was — yes — he 
said  it  was  to  breakfast. 

Q.  He  did  not  tell  you  the  object  ?     A.  No,  I  think  not. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  who  was  to  be  there  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  he  go  ?     A.  Yes,  he  went  there  certainly. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  ?     A.  I  went  with  him. 

Q.  How  soon  was  this  after  the  first  meeting  ?  A.  AVithin  the 
compass  of  three  or  four  days,  or  a  week,  certainly. 


THE  REV.   WILLIAM  JACKSON.  219 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  person  with  Rowan  Avhen  you  were  there  ? 

A.  I  really  believe — I  can't  speak  positive,  and  I'll  tell  you  why 

there  were  two  or  three  meetings,   and  I  can't  tell  at  which — there 
was  a  relative  of  Mr.  Rowan,  I  think  his  father  or  fathei--in-law. 

Q.  Did  that  relative  continue  during  the  whole  time  you  were 
there  ?     A.  No  ;  he  went  away. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  there  was  anybody  else  ?  A.  I 
think  Mr.  Tone  was  there,  I  cannot  positively  swear. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  was  the  subject  of  the  conversation 
there  ?     A.  It  was  on  politics. 

Q.  What  politics  ?     A.  Irish  aiFairs. 

Q.  In  what  respect  ?  A.  A  great  deal  was  said  about  the  United 
Irishmen  of  which  Mr.  Rowan  was  a  member ;  some  pamphlets  were 
read,  and  some  other  matters  talked  of  between  them — and  there  was  a 
conversation  about  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  people  in  some  part  of 
the  kingdom. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  a  meeting  with  Jackson  and  Row^an  when 
Tone  was  present  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  know,  previous  to  going,  who  was  to  be  there  ?  A.  I 
now  begin  to  recollect,  but  I  am  not  positively  certain,  Jackson  said 
Tone  was  to  be  there. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  any  person  there  ?     A.  I  met  Mr.  Tone  there. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Was  that  the  first  meeting  or  the  second  ?  A.  I 
am  not  sure ;  but  at  some  meeting  I  met  Mr.  Tone  there. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  for  what  purpose  Jackson  went  to  meet  Tone  there, 
or  for  what  purpose  he  was  there  ?  A.  Mr.  Jackson  did  not  tell  me 
for  what  purpose  he  was  to  be  there. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  person  present  but  Tone,  Rowan,  Jackson 
and  you  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  what  was  the  purport  of  the  conversation  ?  A.  I 
shall  be  very  little  able  to  complete  an  answer  to  that  question, 
because  I  did  not  particularly  wish  to  make  myself  master  of  that 
conversation  in  toto. 

Q.  Be  pleased  to  inform  the  court  what  you  do  recollect  of  that 
conversation.  A.  There  was  some  paper  produced,  it  was  in  the 
hands  of  Tone  and  it  was  read  by  him  and  Rowan. 

Lord  Clonmel — Read  aloud  ?  A.  Not  so  loud  that  I  could 
understand  it. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — Did  you  see  that  paper  again  at  any 
time  ?     A.  I  had  it  once. 

Q.  Would  you  know  it  again  ?     A.  I  made  no  mark  on  it. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  did  not  ask  you  that. 

Witness — If  I  were  to  see  it  I  would  make  you  an  answer  whether 
I  would  know  it  or  not ;  before  that  I  cannot  give  an  answer. 

Q.  You  read  it  ?     A.  No  ;  never. 

Q.  What  conversation  passed  at  the  meeting  where  Tone  was  ?  I 
don't  ask  you  the  particular  words.  A.  The  conversation  among  the 
three  was  the  forming  a  plan,  or  talking  of  a  plan,  to  send  somebody 
to  France. 

Q.  Was  any  particular  person  mentioned  to  go  on  that  errand  ? 
A.  Mr.  Tone  was  asked  to  go. 

Lord  Clonmel — What — to  go  ?     A.  To  go. 


220  TRIAL    OF 

Mr.  Attorney-General For  what  purpose  was  he  to  go  ?     A. 

As  I  understood 

Q.  Did  you  understand  from  the  conversation  for  what  pui'pose 
Tone  was  to  go  to  France  ? 

Mr.   CuRRAN It  is  impossible  to  sustain  the  question  that  is  put, 

in  law — did  he  understand — it  is  not  a  legal  question,  and  for  one 
reason  as  good  as  a  thousand  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  indict  a 
witness  for  perjury  upon  such  testimony. 

The  Court You  need   not  go  further  into  the  objection.     (To 

the  witness.)  Did  you  hear  the  conversation  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  it  ?     A.  Yes,  in  part. 

Q.  How  do  you  mean  in  part  ?  A.  They  were  at  one  corner  of 
the  room,  and  I  in  another  with  a  book  in  my  hand,  and  I  did  not 
hear  enough  to  state  what  they  said. 

Mr.  Attorney-General Do  you  know  for  what  purpose  Tone 

was  to  go  to  France  ?     A.  I  cannot  say,  but  from  my  own  conjecture. 

Q.  Did  Jackson  ever  tell  you  for  what  purpose  Tone  was  to  go  ? 
A.  Never  directly  so ;  but  from  what  I  understood  and  from 
general  conversations,  I  am  well  satisfied  what  the  purpose  was  in 
my  own  mind 

Q.  (The  Court.)  What  did  he  say  ?     A.  I  cannot  repeat  it. 

Q.  What  was  the  substantial  import  ?  A.  The  substantial  import 
was  that  he  was  to  go  to  France  with  a  paper  as  I  understand — those 
papers  I  never  saw. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Tone  agree  to  go  ?  A.  At  one  time  he  said  he  would, 
at  another  time  he  receded  ;  he  gave  his  reasons  for  agreeing  to  go 
and  for  receding. 

Mr.  CuRRAN Was   Mr.  Jackson  present?     A.  At  the   reasons 

that  he  first  gave,  Mr.  Jackson  was  not  present.- 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — Where  was  it  ?     A.  At  Newgate. 

Q.  Had  you  a  meeting  with  Tone  and  Rowan  when  Jackson  was 
not  present  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Tone  give  any  reasons  for  going  or  not 
going  when  Jackson  was  present  ?     A,  Yes  Sir. 

Q.  Where  was  that  ?     A.  At  Newgate. 

Q.  Who  was  present  ?     A.  Mr.  Rowan,  Mr.  Tone  and  I. 

Q.  Was  Jackson  present  ?  A.  I  think  he  was.  [This  evidence 
was  objected  to.] 

Q.  Were  you  at  Rowan's  lodgings  at  Newgate  at  any  other 
meeting  than  those  you  have  mentioned  ?  A.  How  many  have  I 
mentioned  ? 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  other  person  besides  Tone  at  Rowan's 
lodgings  in  Newgate  ?     A.  Yes,  I  saw  Dr.  Reynolds. 

Q.  Was  Tone  present  at  either  of  them  ?     A.  Once  he  was. 

Q.  How  often  ?     A.  Once  if  not  twice. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there  more  than  once  ?  A.  I  think  twice — 
'tis  a  year  ago,  and  I  have  had  tliat  on  my  mind  since,  that  has 
shattered  my  memory  very  much. 

Q.  Was  Jackson  i)resent  at  either  of  those  meetings  that  Reynolds 
was  at  ?     A.  I  don't  know  how  to  swear  positively — I  think  he  was. 

Q.  Did  you  go  alone  to  the  meeting  ?  A.  I  can't  tell — I  was 
alone  more  than  once  at  Mr.  Rowan's. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  221 

Q.  I  ask  you  did  you  go  alone  to  the  meeting  at  which  Dr. 
Reynolds  was  present  ?  A.  If  I  could  have  answered  that  question, 
I  would  have  saved  you  the  trouble  of  repeating  it. 

Q.  What  conversation  passed  between  Rowan,  Reynolds  and  Tone 
when  you  saw  them  together  ? 

[Counsel  for  the  prisoner  objected  to  this  question,  Jackson  not 
being  proved  to  have  been  present.] 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  Jackson  respecting  Dr. 
Reynolds  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  What  was  the  substance  of  it  ?  A.  The  substance  of  it  was, 
as  to  his  being  a  proper  or  an  improper  jDcrson  to  go  to  France. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  What  did  Jackson  say  on  that  subject  ?  A. 
Mr.  Jackson  said  he  did  not  so  much  approve  of  him  as  of  Mr. 
Tone. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — Did  he  tell  you  why  ?  A.  I  cannot 
answer  that  he  told  me  why — the  reason  why,  I  thought,  I  am  con- 
vinced   

Q.  Did  Jackson  tell  you  on  what  errand  Reynolds  was  to  have 
gone  ?     A.  The  same  of  Tone's. 

Q.  What  was  that  ?     A.  To  carry  some  paper  to  France. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  How  do  you  know  ?  A.  Because  the  paper, 
whatever  it  was,  was  drawn  in  Newgate  while  I  was  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  this  from  your  own  knowledge,  or  did  Jackson 
tell  you  ?     A.  I  cannot  say  that  he  told  me  so  in  hcec  verba. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  substantially  what  you  heard  from  the  prisoner  ? 
A.  In  substance,  it  was,  that  he  was  to  go  to  France  with  some 
instructions  to  the  French.  It  is  veiy  difficult  to  repeat  conversations 
with  accuracy  ;  I  have  heard  this  in  many  alternate  conversations 
Avith  Jackson,  with  Tone,  with  Reynolds  and  with  Rowan. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — My  client  is  to  be  affected  by  no  conversation  that 
is  not  sworn  to  have  been  in  his  presence  ;  the  witness  says  there 
were  some  conversations  at  which  he  was  not  present,  and  therefore 
it  is  necessary  the  witness  should  swear  positively  that  Jackson  was 
present,  when  any  thing  respecting  those  instructions  passed. 

Witness Originally  Tone  was  to  have  gone,   but  he  left  Dublin 

abruptly  without  saying  whether  he  would  or  would  not  go,  and  then 
Mr.  Rowan  applied  to  Dr.  Reynolds,  I  believe.  If  I  am  not  point 
blank  in  my  answers,  you  will  let  me  tell  why  I  am  not  so,  for  I  would 
not  leave  the  Court  under  the  impression  that  I  would  wilfully  con- 
ceal any  thing. 

Q.  Then  Jackson  told  you  that  Reynolds  was  to  go  to  France  and 
take  a  paper  ;  did  you  learn  from  him  in  conversation  what  that  paper 
was  ?  A.  So  many  conversations  we  have  had,  that  it  draws  me  into 
a  maze  which  of  them  I  shall  think  of.  I  was  many  Aveeks  in  com- 
pany Avith  the  prisoner,  and  the  subject  was  talked  of  repeatedly.  I 
cannot  tell  the  precise  words. 

Q.  You  mistake  me,  I  asked  you  of  conversations  in  general 
between  you  and  Jackson.  Did  he  ever  tell  you  for  what  purpose 
Reynolds  was  to  be  sent  to  France  ?  A.  To  take  some  written 
paper  with  him,  to  the  French  Convention  I  believe  ;  I  cannot  say 
positively. 

Q.  Did  Jackson  tell  you  at   any  time  or  in   any  conversation  for 


222  TRIAL   OF 

what  purpose  Reynolds  was  to  go  ?  A.  I  don't  know  how  to  answer, 
there  are  so  many  answers  to  be  given  this  question. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Did  you  draw  any  inference  from  these  convei'- 
sations  for  what  purpose  he  was  to  be  sent  ? 

Mr.  CuRUAN. — I  beg  your  lordship's  pardon ;  but  the  witness  will 
conceive  that  he  has  a  right  to  give  his  own  opinion  in  answer  to  that 
question. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Did  you  understand  unequivocally  from  those 
conversations  what  he  was  to  be  sent  for — did  Jackson  ever  tell  you 
for  what  purpose,  or  to  whom  Reynolds  or  Tone  were  to  go  ?  A. 
They  were  to  go  to  France.  I  cannot  tell  in  what  words  to  put  my 
answer — I  cannot  say  to  whom  they  were  to  go  ;  if  I  was  to  say  one 
person  I  might  be  wrong,  for  it  was  my  own  understanding  of  it.  I 
understood  from  general  conversations  constantly  had,  that  they  wei'e 
to  go  with  some  papers  to  France.  I  cannot  repeat  Jackson's  words, 
my  own  words  will  be  my  understanding  of  his  woi'ds. 

Attorney- General. — The  witness  said  he  had  already  heard  so 
in  alternate  conversations  with  Jackson,  Tone,  &c. 

Witness I  adhere  to  that  still. 

Lord  Clonmel. — "  With  instructions  for  the  French" — for  what 
purpose  ?  A.  I  shall  there  catch  up  what  I  said  befoi-e — I  under- 
stood they  were  to  have  written  instructions  for  the  French,  but  what 
they  were  I  don't  know. 

Attorney-General. — To  what  part  of  France  was  the  mes- 
senger to  go  ?     A.  I  understood  they  were  to  go  to  Paris. 

Q.  From  whom  did  you  understand  that  ?     A.  From  them  all. 

Q.  Did  either  Tone  or  Reynolds  receive  any  encouragement  to  go  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q,  Either  Tone  or  Reynolds  in  your  presence  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  By  whom  ?     A.  By  the  prisoner  and  Rowan. 

Q.  What  were  the  encouragements  that  Jackson  held  out  to  Tone  ? 
A.  That  he  would  find  the  French  a  generous  and,  I  think,  a  brave 
people — a  generous  people. 

Q.  Was  there  any  thing  in  the  conversation  that  led  Jackson  to 
say  that  ?  A.  WTiat  brought  that  speech  from  Jackson  I  presume, 
was  owing  to  the  difficulties  that  Tone  raised  to  his  going. 

Q.  What  were  they  ?     A.  A  wife  and  family. 

Q.  Were  there  any  others  mentioned  ?  A.  The  loss  of  oppor- 
tunities which  might  very  likely  arise  from  his  remaining  in  this 
kingdom. 

Q.  Did  Jackson  give  Reynolds  encouragement  to  go,  or  use  any 
persuasions  ?  A.  Not  much — ^lie  did  not  like  him  ;  he  would  rather 
have  had  Tone. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  hand-writing  of  the  prisoner  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  had  correspondence  while  here  with 
persons  out  of  this  kingdom  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  what  letters  he 
wrote. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  did  not  ask  you — did  he  write 
lettei's  ?     A.  I  believe — I  know — I  remember  his  writing  one. 

Q.  Was  it  in  his  own  name,  or  under  another  signature  ?  A.  I 
cannot  tell. 

[Here  the  witness  proved  Mr.  Jackson's  hand- writing  to  the  super- 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  223 

scription  of  a  letter,  dated  5th  of  Api'il,  1794,  and  directed  to  Mr. 
Stone.  He  also  proved  a  second  paper,  (the  paper  of  addresses 
marked  No.  2,)  and  a  third  in  his  (the  witness's)  hand- writing,  dated 
the  24th  of  April,  1794,  and  directed  to  Benjamin  Beresford.] 

Q.  On  what  occasion  did  you  write  that  lettei',  or  by  whose  direc- 
tions ?     A.  By  the  prisoner's  directions. 

Q.  "Was  it  your  own  composition  or  a  copy.     A.  It  was  a  copy. 

Q.  From  what  ? (a  long  pause.)     A.  From   a  letter  in  the 

hand- writing  of  the  prisoner. 

Q.  Who  gave  you  that  letter?     A.  The  prisoner. 

Q.  Did  you  take  a  just  copy  ?     A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  Whose  hand-writing  is  the  superscription  ?     A.  Mine. 

Q.  What  was  done  with  it  when  you  copied  it  ?  A.  It  was  con- 
veyed to  the  Post-office. 

Q.  Who  sealed  it?   A.  The  seal  is  so  much  defaced  that  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  At  what  time  of  the  day  did  you  get  it  to  copy  ?  A.  I  believe 
in  the  morning. 

Q.  And  did  you  sit  down  immediately  to  copy  it,  or  did  you  make 
any  other  use  of  it  ?    A.  I  don't  know  whether  I  sent  another  copy  of  it. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  question — did  you  shew  it  to  any  person  ? 
A.  If  I  shewed  it  to  any  body  it  was  to  Mr.  Sackville  Hamilton. 

Q.  Did  you  shew  it  to  him  ?     A.  I  really  believe  so. 

Q.  Did  you  shew  him  any  letter  ?  A.I  think  I  carried  the  original 
of  that  very  letter  to  him — I  verily  believe  I  did :  If  I  should  swear 
positively,  and  that  it  turns  out  otherwise,  you  will  say  that  I  have 
said  wrong. 

Q.  Then  can  you  recollect  that  you  carried  any  letter  to  Mr. 
Hamilton  ?     A.  I  do  recollect. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  of  that  ?     A.  I  am. 

Q.  Did  you  carry  any  other  letter  ?  A.  No,  and  for  that  reason 
I  think  this  was  the  letter. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  In  whose  hand-writing  was  the  letter  you 
carried  Mr.  Hamilton  ?     A.  In  the  prisoner's. 

Q.  Did  you  get  the  letter  back  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  he  deliver  it  immediately,  or  did  you  go  again  for  it  ? 
A.  I  went  again  for  it. 

Q.  What  became  of  the  original  afterwards  ?  A.  The  prisoner 
got  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  Mr.  Hamilton  did  with  the  letter  you 
•shewed  him  ?  A.  He  took  a  press  copy  of  it — I  think  I  was  in  the 
room  when  he  took  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  take  a  press  copy  of  any  letter  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Of  what  ?     A.  Of  the  original  of  this  letter. 

Q.  Now  did  you  bring  the  original  of  that  letter  to  any  body 
before  you  returned  it  to  the  prisoner?  A.  I  carried  it  back  from 
Mr.  Hamilton  to  the  prisoner,  and  did  not  shew  it  to  any  person  in 
the  mean  time. 

Q.  "WTio  put  the  copy  into  the  Post-office  ?  A.  I  don't  know — it 
w^as  written  in  the  presence  of  the  prisoner,  and  sent  to  the  Post- 
office. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  By  whose  directions  ?  A.  By  the  directions 
of  the  prisoner. 


224  TRIAL   OF 

[A  letter  marked  B.   No.  4,  dated  21st  and    24th    April,     1794, 

produced.] 

Q.  Ill  whose  hand- writing  is  the  superscription  ?     A.  My  own. 

Q.  By  whose  directions  did  you  write  it  ?     A.  By  the  pi'isoner's. 

Q.  Was  it  put  into  the  Post-office  ?  A.  I  do  not  know,  and  it  is 
necessary  I  should  explain ;  there  were  several  letters  sent  by  the 
servants  of  the  coffee-house,  and  some  were  put  in  by  myself,  and  I 
cannot  tell  which  were  which. 

Q.  Did  you  pvxt  in  any  letters  by  the  prisoner's  directions  ?  A. 
All  that  I  put  in  were  by  his  directions,  but  I  cannot  identify  them. 

[A  letter  marked  C.  No.  5,  produced.] 

Q.  Whose  hand-writing  is  the  direction  ?     A.  Mine. 

Q.  By  whose  directions  did  you  superscribe  that?  .  A.  By  the 
prisoners. 

Q.  Look  on  that  which  is  inside,  was  the  cover  sealed  up  when  you 
got  it,  or  did  you  see  the  paper  with  the  cross  on  it  which  is  enclosed  ? 
A.  I  never  saw  it  before ;  do  not  understand  me  to  say  that  I  knew 
that  enclosure  was  within  the  cover  I  directed. 

Q.  Look  at  that  second  cover — whose  hand- writing  is  that  ?  A.  My 
hand-writing. 

[A  letter  marked  D.  No.  6,  produced.] 

Witness. — The  superscription  of  the  first  outer  cover  is  my  hand- 
writing. 

Q.  By  whose  directions  ?     A.  By  the  prisoner's. 

Q.  Look  on  the  second  cover — whose  is  the  superscription  ? 
A.  Mine. 

Q.  Whose  is  the  writing  within  ? — "  Remember  me  to  Laignelot 
and  family  ?"     A.  Mine. 

Q.  By  whose  directions  did  you  write  them  ?  A.  By  the  pri- 
soner's. 

Q.  Then  the  first  must  have  been  open  when  you  wrote  them  ? 
A.  It  was. 

Q.  Were  these  done  both  on  the  same  day  or  not  ?  A.  I  know  I 
did  direct  four  or  five  on  the  same  day,  but  I  am  not  certain  whether 
I  wrote  these  or  not. 

Q.  Did  the  prisoner  ever  prevent  you  from  going  to  the  post-office 
with  letters  ?     A.  No. 

[The  paper  marked  C.  No  5,  was  produced  again,  and  the  writing 
in  the  inside  cover  the  witness  acknowledged  to  be  his  hand- writing.] 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  letter  directed  to  Home  Tooke  ?     A.  I  did. 

[A  letter  directed  to  Home  Tooke  produced.] 

Q.  Did  you  read  it  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Would  you  know  it  again  ?  A.  I  would — [here  the  letter  was 
produced  to  the  witness,]  I  believe  that  is  the  same. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY Are  you  sure  it  is  the  same  ?     A.  It  is  very  hard 

to  swear  it  is  the  same,  but  I  verily  believe  it  is  the  same. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Curran. 

Q.  You  have  known  the  prisoner  many  years  ?     A.  Yes. 
Q.  He  is  a  clergyman  ?     A.  Yes. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  225 

Q.  An  Englishman  ?  A.  I  don't  know  ;  I  believe  he  is  a  native 
of  Ireland.     I  have  always  thought  him  an  Irishman. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  whether  Lewins  was  present  at  the  first 
meeting  you  were  at  ?     A.  I  am  not  certain  now. 

Q.  You  have  known  Mr.  M'Nally  when  he  practised  at  the  English 
bar?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  so  had  Mr.  Jackson  ?     Yes. 

Q.  He  was  counsel  at  Lord  Hood's  election,  and  you  knew  him 
there,  did  you  not  ?  A.  I  believe  I  saw  him  on  the  hustings  there, 
three  or  four  times. 

Q.  It  was  in  consequence  of  this  acquaintance  that  he  asked  you  to 
dinner  ?     A.  I  do  not  know  what  his  motive  was. 

Q.  You  had  business  to  transact  here  ?  A.  I  had  several  things 
to  transact  here. 

Q.  And  you  applied  to  Mr.  M'Nally  ?  A.  Yes;  he  has  done 
some  business  for  me. 

Q.  Must  you  not  think  that  your  recollection  is  very  untenacious 
as  to  what  happened  a  year  ago,  when  yeu  cannot  recollect  whether 
Lewins  was  at  that  meeting  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  positively,  but  I 
verily  believe  he  was. 

Q.  You  said  your  memory  had  been  somewhat  shattered  ?  A.  It 
has  been  so,  by  this  transaction. 

Q.  You  have  not  stated  how  ?  A.  It  grieves  my  mind  more  than 
I  can  describe,  to  see  that  gentleman  in  that  situation  :  It  has  made 
much  impression  on  me  of  late. 

Q.  Had  you  any  feelings  about  yourself  ?  A.  I  ought  to  have  had 
them  ;  I  have  had  a  great  deal  of  luieasiness. 

Q.  As  to  personal  danger  ?  A.  Yes — I  more  than  once  thought 
my  own  person  in  danger.* 

Q.  Do  you  consider  it  out  of  danger  now  ?     A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  But  are  you  sure,  or  is  it  only  a  general  notion — what  makes 
you  think  so  ?     A.  I  do  not  see  any  one  to  offend  me. 

Q.  To  offend  you !  Is  there  no  particular  fact  on  which  you  build 
a  good  notion  of  your  security  ?  A.  No — I  do  not  see  any  danger  in 
the  country  now  ;  it  is  not  in  that  state  I  expected  ;  it  is  quite  quiet 
now,  and  therefore  I  was  not  afraid  of  coming. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  conceive  that  the  danger  I  alluded  to  was  from 
any  disturbance  in  the  country  ?     A.  I  did  suppose  so. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  think  that  I  alluded  to  any  personal  matter 
of  your  own  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  nothing  pass  in  your  mind  to  lead  you  to  think  that  I 
glanced  at  it  ?     A.  No — I  feel  no  such  thing. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  at  this  moment  that  you  were  considered  an 
accomplice  in  this  business  ?  A.  I  considered  myself  so,  more  than 
the  officers  of  the  crown  did. 

Q.  Do  you  not  come  forward  to-day  from  a  pure  love  of  justice? 
A.  I  come  forward  with  very  great  reluctance.  I  am  under  a  very 
heavy  recognizance,  which  I  cannot  possibly  get  over  ;  and  it  grieves 
me  to  appear  against  a  man  with  whom  I  have  been  so  intimate. 

Q.  Did  you  always  freely  declare  the  evidence  you  would  give  on 
this  subject  when  you  were  interrogated  ?     A.  I  do  not  know  with 

*  The  Defenders  intended  to  have  murdered  Cockayne.  See  Trial  of  Leary,  post. 

Q 


226  TRIAL   OF 

whom  I  have  communicated  in  this  particular  way.  "Whenever  any 
one  asked  me  a  question  about  it,  I  gave  such  answer  as  at  the  time 
occurred  to  me  to  be  right. 

Q.  What !  were  you  never  examined  before  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  At  the  Castle. 

Q.  Did  you  state  your  evidence  there  freely  and  voluntarily? 
A.  Not  so  voluntarily,  very  likely,  as  might  have  been  wished.  I 
gave  the  evidence,  and  signed  the  examinations  which  Lord  Clonmel 
prepared  from  my  words. 

Q.  Did  you  do  that  voluntarily  ?  A.  There  was  no  force  used  ;  I 
wished  not  to  do  it. 

Q.  Was  there  no  menace — no  threat  made  use  of?  A.  I  believe 
I  hesitated  about  signing  it  as  much  as  I  could ;  I  believe  Lord 
Clonmel  said  I  ought  to  recollect  that  I  was  in  their  power,  as  to 
committing  me,  if  I  refused  to  sign  it. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Recollect  yourself. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Do — recollect  yourself — and  state  what  was  said  to 
you  touching  the  power  of  committing  you.  A.  I  hesitated  in  signing 
the  examination  at  first,  which  after  I  had  been  sworn  by  the  Privy 
Counsel,  Lord  Clonmel  was  so  good  as  to  modify  once  or  twice,  in 
the  way  I  proposed :  still  I  hesitated,  on  the  principle  that  I  was 
apprehensive  I  was  an  accomplice — I  was  pressed  again  and  again — 
I  evaded  signing  it,  and  I  believe  Lord  Clonmel's  patience  was  in 
some  degree  wearied  by  my  delay,  and  he  said,  I  think,  "  don't  you 
know  that  you  are  in  our  power." 

Q.  What — did  you  conceive  the  danger  that  you  were  threatened 
with  was,  that  you  might  be  charged  yourself  with  the  crime  ?  A.  I 
thought  so,  and  I  think  the  Attorney- General  did  express  his  opinion 
that  I  was  not  chargeable  with  it. 

Q.  You  signed  the  examination  there  ?     A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Where  then  ?     A.  At  Lord  Clonmel's  house. 

Lord  Clonmel Did  you  sign  your  examination  the  day  you  gave 

it  in  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  to  consider  of  it  before  it  was  signed  ?  A.  I 
had  two  or  three  days  to  consider  it. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Another  thing  is  of  public  consequence  to  be 
known.  Recollect  yourself.  When  you  talked  of  being  in  anybody's 
power,  was  it  for  not  signing  the  examination,  or  being  threatened  as 
an  accomplice  if  you  did  not  sign  ?  A.  For  not  signing  the  examina- 
tion— and  I  have  much  thanks  to  express  to  your  lordship  for  your 
humanity  in  that  business. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — You  say  you  followed  Jackson  to  Ireland  in  order 
to  counteract  any  schemes  that  he  might  have  relative  to  sending 
provisions  ?  A.  I  did ;  I  thought  it  my  duty  as  a  good  subject,  as 
having  taken  the  oaths  of  allegiance  three  times  to  the  king  ;  and 
that  was  my  first  reason  for  applying  to  government  in  England  on 
the  subject. 

Q.  So  your  sole  reason  for  undertaking  this  business  was  your 
having  taken  the  oaths  of  allegiance  ?  A.  That  was  my  sole  reason 
for  my  first  application  to  government  in  England. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  apply  ?     A.  To  Mr.  Pitt. 

Q.  Jackson  was  your  client  at  that  time  ?  A.  And  had  been  so 
for  many  years. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  227 

Q.  And  your  old  friend  ?     A.  And  my  old  friend. 

Q.  Added  to  the  duty  of  your  allegiance,  was  there  not  some  idea 
of  benefit  to  yourself?     A.  None. 

Q.  No  expectation  ?  A.  I  did  not  exjDect  anything,  nor  do  I  expect 
anything. 

Q.  There  was  no  promise  made  of  any  ?  A.  None  by  Mr.  Pitt  or 
any  person,  except  what  I  shall  now  state  :  what  passed  between  me 
and  Mr.  Pitt  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  state  if  I  am  at  liberty.  I  applied 
to  Mr.  Pitt  by  letter,  and  acquainted  him  that  there  was  in  England 
this  Mr.  Jackson,  who  had  come  here,  I  believed 

Q.  Sir,  I  was  asking  you  about  a  reward.  A.  There  was  none 
but  this — when  I  stated  the  circumstances  to  Mr.  Pitt,  I  mentioned 
likewise  that  Mr.  Jackson  owed  me  a  considerable  sum  of  money  on 
the  balance  of  an  account :  that  if  I  interfered  and  should  be  a  sufferer 
thereby,  I  should  think  it  hard  as  to  that  sum,  which  Jackson  owed 
me. 

(By  the  Court.)  To  what  amount  was  he  your  debtor  ?  A.  About 
£300. 

Q.  You  mentioned  that  in  your  letter  to  Mr.  Pitt  ?  A.  No  ;  in  a 
conversation. 

Q.  The  amount  I  mean.  A.  Yes;  Mr.  Pitt,  I  believe,  made 
answer — "  You  must  not  be  a  loser." 

Mr.  CuRRAN — What  was  the  sum  you  told  Mr.  Pitt  that  he  owed 
you  ?     A.  About  £300. 

Q.  By  virtue  of  your  oath  was  that  the  sum  you  mentioned  ?  A.  I 
think  so ;  the  sum  due  to  me  Avas  between  £250  and  £300. 

Q.  Did  you  never  tell  anybody  that  you  named  £600  to  Mr.  Pitt 
as  the  debt  ?     A.  Never  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.   So  you  then  came  over  to  Ireland  with  Jackson  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  did  not  understand  that  you  were  to  be  paid  this  debt,  in 
case  you  survived  Jackson  as  a  loyal  subject  ?  A.  By  no  means  as 
you  put  it. 

_  Q.  Yet  that  was  a  very  likely  way  to  put  it  out  of  danger.  A.  I 
did  not  think  Mr.  Jackson  would  ever  be  in  the  situation  he  is,  or 
that  I  would  ever  be  brought  here  as  an  evidence. 

Q.  You  are  a  practising  Attorney  in  England  ?     A.  Y''es. 

Q-  You  expected  no  reward  for  your  interfering  in  this  matter  ? 
A.  I  expected  to  be  paid  my  expenses  in  coming  over  here,  as  I 
would  be  paid  in  any  other  matter  whatever. 

Q.  So  your  evidence  is,  that  you  thought  your  old  friend  and  client 
was  going  to  do  wrong,  and  you  left  your  ordinary  business  in  England 
to  come  here,  to  be  a  spy  upon  him  for  the  ordinary  expenses  of  any 
other  witness  ?     A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  obtain  a  pardon  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Of  Avhat  ?  A.  Of  all  treasons  and  misprisions  of  treasons 
committed  in  Ireland. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  get  a  pardon  for  any  treasons  committed  in 
England?     A.  No. 

Q.  Were  you  originally  a  professional  man  ?  A.  I  never  followed 
any  other  business. 

Q.  Did  your  pardon  go  to  any  conviction  for  perjury  ?  A.  No  ;  I 
believe  not — I  forgot,  or  I  would  have  put  it  in  my  pocket. 


228  TRIAL   OF 

Q.  Were  you  evei"  tried  for  perjury?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Perjury  in  what  ?     A.  In  an  affidavit  that  I  swore. 

(By  the  Court.) — When  were  you  tried?     A.  In  the  year  1793. 

Q.  Now,  by  virtue  of  the  oath  you  have  taken,  did  you  ever  tell 
anybody  that  that  affidavit  was  in  fact  false  ?  A.  I  must  apply  to 
the  Court,  whether  I  ought  to  answer  that  question  ? 

Q.  The  question  is  this,  you  have  been  indicted  and  tried  for 
perjury — now  I  ask,  by  virtue  of  your  oath,  did  you  confess  since  the 
trial,  that  you  were  guilty  of  that  offence. 

(By  the  Court.) — You  were  acquitted  ?  A.  Yes,  and  I  hope 
honourably. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Is  that  your  name  ? — (shews  a  paper.)     A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  say  you  hope  you  were  acquitted  honourably  ?  A.  I  do 
say  so,  and  I  hope  I  was. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you,  by  virtue  of  your  oath  did  you  mention  to  any 
person  that  that  affidavit  was  in  fact  false  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  how 
to  answer  that  (a  laugh)  it  is  not  laughing  matter — I  do  not  know 
how  to  answer  it ! 

Q.  Why  do  you  not  know  ?  A.  I  have  been  acquitted  on  that 
affidavit,  and  as  honourably  as  any  man  could  be. 

Q.  Did  you  say  it  was  false  ?  A.  My  Lords,  I  think  it  will  be 
right  for  me  to  state  some  of  the  particulars  of  that  indictment. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Let  him  answer  my  question. 

Lord  Clonmel I  think  he  has  a  right  to  open  the  way  for  his 

answer  by  any  explanations — Take  your  course.  Sir. 

Witness. — The  indictment  for  perjury  against  me  was,  because  I 
swore  that  I  attended  at  the  Prothonotary's  otHce  in  the  Temple  from 
one  hour  to  another,  it  was  in  an  action  brought  by  an  attorney  of  the 
name  of  Fletcher  against  a  client  of  mine ;  he  could  not  support  the 
action,  and  there  was  a  summons  to  tax  the  costs ;  there  was  some 
dispute  as  to  my  charge  for  attendance.  I  swore — I  liad  attended  at 
the  Prothonotary's  office  from  six  till  seven  on  some  business  ;  the 
business  was  done  in  fact  on  the  next  day  that  my  attendance  was 
made  ;  and  the  perjury  was  neither  wilful  nor  corrupt ;  it  was  that  I 
could  not  prove  my  attendance  the  complete  hour — but  the  Court  on 
hearing  that  explanation,  and  seeing  that  I  could  gain  nothing  by  it, 
directed  my  acquittal,  and  the  jury  acquitted.  There  is  a  gentleman 
of  high  lionour  come  here  from  England  to  vindicate  me,  and  I  hope 
the  Court  will  hear  him. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Do  you  know  Mr.  Nailor  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  him  that  the  affidavit  was  false  in  fact  ? 
A.  I  have  already  stated  to  the  Court  how  far  it  was  not  true.  I 
incautiously  swore  that  I  attended  an  hour.  I  could  not  prove  the 
attendance  for  the  whole  hour — the  business  being  done  the  next  day, 
as  completely  as  if  the  attendance  had  taken  place,  and  being  no 
advantage  to  me,  or  disadvantage  to  anybody  else,  I  was  acquitted. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again,  did  you  tell  Nailor  that  the  affidavit  was  not  I 
true  ?    A.  I  dare  say  I  did,  so  far  as  I  say  now  :  I  always  admitted  it, 
and  though  I  might  have  made  two  fatal  objections  to  the  indictment,  I 
would  not  suffijr  )ny  counsel  to  take  advantage  of  them,  because  I  was 
resolved  to  be  acquitted  or  found  guilty  on  the  merits  ;  there  was  a  ■ 
judgment  stated,  and  they  did  not  produce  it ;  Mr.  Garrow,  Avho  was  j 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  229 

my  counsel,  immediately  said  it  was  fatal,  and  so  Mr.  Mainwaring, 
the  chairman  said,  but  I  would  not  take  advantage  of  it. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  any  promise  of  reward  from  Mr.  Pitt  ?  A.  None, 
but  what  I  mentioned. 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  any  one  that  you  had  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  Mr.  Nailor  that  you  had  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Nailor  that  you  had  told  Mr.  Pitt  your  debt  was 
£600  ?     A.  No,  I  would  scorn  it. 

Q.  You  would  scorn  either  to  come,  or  to  stay  on  any  pecuniary 
motive  ?  A.  I  would — and  I  call  this  the  severest  day  to  my  feelings 
that  I  ever  saw. 

Q.  As  to  that  debt  of  Jackson's — did  you  think  he  was  likely  to 
pay  it  ?     A.  I  did. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Had  you  any  quarrel  with  the  attorney,  who 
prosecuted  that  indictment  ?  A.  No,  he  ran  away  a  little  afterwards 
with  one  of  the  witnesses. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Do  you  know  of  any  of  the  letters  you  put  into  the 
office  ?     A.  If  you  call  for  any  one  letter,  I  may  answer  you. 

Q.  Some  of  the  letters  you  put  into  the  office  had  one  or  two 
envelopes  ;  did  you  know  their  contents  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  the  person  to  whom  they  were  addressed  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  there  were  any  orders  at  the  Post-office  to 
intercept  those  letters  ?  A.  I  do  not  know,  but  I  believe  there  were 
orders  to  intercept  any  letters  that  should  be  written  by  Jackson. 

Lord  Clonmel How  soon  did  you  hear  of  that  ?     A.  As  soon 

as  I  came  here. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — You  knew  that  before  you  delivered  any  letters  into 
the  Post-office  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  know  it  before  you  delivered  that  letter  marked  D.  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  did  deliver  that  letter. 

Q.  Any  that  you  did  delivei-,  you  knew  would  be  intercepted? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  as  a  good  subject  you  put  them  in  with  intention  that  they 
should  be  intercepted  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  put  them  in  with  any  design  that  they  should 
go  abroad  at  all  ?     A.  I  don't  know  what  became  of  them  afterwards. 

Q.  But  you  intended  they  should  not  go  abroad  ?  •  A.  I  do  not 
know  how  the  Post-office  disposed  of  them,  I  do  not  know  that  I  had 
made  up  my  mind  at  all — I  knew  they  would  be  intercepted — I  could 
not  do  it  with  that  intention. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  intend  that  they  should  go  abroad  to  the 
king's  enemies  ?  A.  Certainly  no — I  took  care  to  prevent  it  as  much 
as  possible. 

Q.  Nor  that  any  encouragement  should  be  given  to  the  King's 
enemies  ?     A.  Certainly  not. 

Q.  Nor  that  information  should  be  given  to  the  enemy?  A. 
Certainly  not. 

Q.  Nor  that  war  should  be  levied  against  the  King  in  this  kingdom  ? 
A.  Certainly  not. 

Q.  You  said  that  you  went  sometimes  to  Mr.  Kowan  by  yourself? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Why  by  yourself  ?     A.  By  the  direction  of  Mr.  Jackson. 


230  TRIAL   OF 

Lord  Clonmel. — Did  Jackson  know  his  letters  were  to  be  intei'- 
cepted  ?     A.  No.  I  believe  not. 

(Bj  one  of  the  Jury).  "Was  your  sole  business  in  coming  to  Ireland 
to  counteract  the  designs  of  Jackson  ?  A.  I  had  some  business  of 
my  own  to  transact  in  Ireland,  but  that  was  my  sole  reason  in  accom- 
panying Jackson. 

Juror. — How  comes  it  then  that  you  have  given  so  veiy  poor  an 
account  of  him  and  of  the  different  transactions  ?  A.  I  have  given 
the  best  account  I  could.  I  gave  government  as  much  information 
as  I  could  with  regard  to  intercepting  the  letters,  and  did  not  expect 
to  be  examined  as  a  witness. 

Sackville  Hamilton Examined  by  the  Prime- Serjeant. 

Q.  "Were  you  in  any  office  under  government  in  1794  ?  A.  I  was 
Under  Secretary  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant  for  the  civil  department  in 
the  beginning  of  that  year.     I  am  not  now  in  any  public  situation. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Cockayne  ?  A.  Yes.  He  brought  me  a 
letter  of  introduction  from  Mr.  Nepean  the  Lender  Secretary  in 
England. 

Q.  Did  he  speak  to  you  about  any  letters  ?  A.  On  the  25th  April, 
the  day  after  the  letters  were  intercepted,  he  asked  me  if  they  had 
been  intercepted. 

Q.  Did  he  shew  you  any  paper  ?  A.  He  showed  me  a  paper 
purporting  to  be  an  original  letter. 

Q.  Wlien  he  gave  you  that  paper,  what  did  you  do  with  it  ?  A.  I 
took  a  press  copy  of  it  from  a  rolling-press  which  lay  in  the  room. 

Q.  Have  you  tliat  press  copy  ?  A.  Yes.  It  is  not  legible  through- 
out. 

Here  Mr.  Curran  objected  that  no  part  of  the  paper  could  be  read, 
it  not  being  legible  throughout,  which  point  was  conceded. 

Isaac  de  Joncourt Examined  by  the  Solicitor-General. 

Q.  In  what  employment  are  you  ?     A.  In  the  Post-office. 

Q.  Have  you  access  to  the  letters  in  the  office  ?     A.  I  have. 

Q.  What  is  yoiu'  department  there  ?     I  am  Deputy- Comptroller. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  paper  No.  3  ?  A.  Yes,  I  found  it  in 
the  office  the  night  of  24th  April. 

Q.  Wliat  induced  you  to  take  notice  of  it  ?  A.  I  was  ordered  to 
have  attention  to  letters  of  that  address. 

(By  the  Court.)  You  found  it  in  the  usual  place  where  letters  are 
deposited  that  are  intended  to  be  conveyed  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Your  orders  were  from  government  ?     A.  They  were. 

Q.  What  were  your  directions  ?  A.  To  open  all  letters  directed 
to  Mr.  Benjamin  Beresford.     I  had  also  orders  to  open  several  others. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  paper  No.  4  ?  A.  Yes.  It  is  directed 
to  Lawrence  and  Co. 

Q.  Had  you  orders  to  open  letters  to  that  address  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  "Was  there  any  enclosvire  in  it  ?  A.  There  was  this  directed 
to  Mr.  Stone.  I  also  stopped  this  letter  (No.  5,)  directed  to  Texier 
Angely  and  Massac,  at  Amsterdam.  There  is  an  enclosure  in  that 
to  Monsieur  Daudebuscaille  and  Co.     No.  6,  directed  to  Monsieur 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  231 

Chapearouge,  at  Hamburgh.  There  is  a  sealed  enclosure  in  it  with 
a  cross  on  the  back  of  it. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  these  letters  ?  A.  I  found  them  sealed  in 
the  ordinary  course  in  the  same  office. 

Q.  Did  you  find  them  aU  on  the  same  day  ?  A.  Yes  ;  on  the 
24th  April. 

Q.  What  did  you  with  them  ?     A.I  gave  them  to  Mr.  Hamilton. 

[Here  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  read  the  papers  marked  A.  and  B. 

as  follows : — ] 

(A) 
A  Monsieur  Beresford  chez.  Bourcard  and  Co.  Basle,  Switzerland. 

I  Dublin,  24th  April,  1794. 

Sir, 
You  are  requested  to  see  'Mr.  Madgett  directly,  and  inform  him 
that  this  evening  two  papers  containing  the  opinion  of  the  first  counsel 
in  this  kingdom  relative  to  his  family  lawsuit  are  sent  off  to  him  by 
the  post.  Mr.  Madgett's  friend  has  been  wholly  occupied  since  his 
arrival  here  in  obtaining  those  opinions,  attending  different  consulta- 
tions and  collecting  what  is  now  sent  as  a  real  case  in  point.  Your 
brother-in-law  with  whom  the  friend  of  I^li*.  Madgett  here  had  fre- 
quent conferences,  approves  the  opinions  as  containing  the  opinions 
of  all  good  and  honest  lawyers  on  the  subject.  IMadgett  may  therefore 
proceed  for  the  recovery  of  his  family  fortune  by  hostile  or  pacific 
means  as  he  and  his  friends  think  proper. 

I  am,  Sii', 

Your  humble  Servant, 

THOMAS  POPKINS. 

N.B. — Your  brother-in-law  has  written  to  your  wife  in  order  to 
find  out  the  sex  of  your  child.  I  am  told  that  it  is  a  veiy  fine  boy, 
the  picture  of  his  father,  sound  in  every  part  except  the  brain. 

(B) 

Messrs.  Lawrence  and  Co.  at  their  Coal  "Wharf,  Rutland  Place,  near 

Blackfriars  Bridge,   London,    enclosing  a  letter  directed  to  IMr. 

Stone. 

Dublin,  21st  April,  1794. 
Dear  Sir, 

Yesterday  your  letters  were  delivered  to  me,  I  am  glad  to  find 
that  the  patterns  I  sent  have  reached  the  persons  for  whom  they  were 
intended  ;  as  from  the  silence  of  the  parties  I  concluded  that  the 
outriders  had  neglected  the  delivery  of  them.  I  do  not  see  anything 
in  the  late  change  of  fashions  which  alters  my  opinion  of  the  stability 
of  the  new  institution,  particularly  as  the  principal  persons  who 
superintend  it,  I  never  have  been  able  to  detect  in  the  slightest 
deviation  from  the  line  of  consistency.  The  rest  have  at  all  times 
been  suspected  of  sinister  motives  and  tergiversation. 

The  state  of  manufactures  in  England  which  your  friend  drew  out, 
and  which  you  so  obligingly  gave,  is  very  just,  as  far  as  it  related  to 
England  ;  but  the  principles  of  the  people,  with  regard  to  trade,  their 


232  TRIAL  OF 

opinion  as  to  a  change,  to  be  brought  about  by  industxy  and  co-oper- 
ating exertion  are  so  totally  different,  as  to  throw  all  comparison  out 
of  the  question.  I  am  promised  by  a  very  eminent  and  sensible 
manufacturer  a  statement  of  the  manufacturing  branches  here  which 
will  gratify  you. 

I  shall  obey  the  instructions  of  your  sister-in-law,  by  not  writing 
to  her,  which  does  not  however  preclude  me  from  requesting,  that 
when  you  write  you  will  remember  me  in  the  most  affectionate  manner 
to  her  and  Mr.  Nicholas.  Let  them  know  whei*e  I  am,  and  that  I  am 
doing  everything  in  my  power  to  serve  Mr.  Nicholas,  and  give  him 
satisfaction  in  bringing  his  affairs  to  the  issue  he  wishes.  His  friends 
here  have  it  in  agitation  to  send  a  person,  on  whom  his  family  and  he 
can  depend,  to  him  with  copies  of  such  covenants  and  leases,  as  will 
shew  the  readiness  of  his  sister-in-law  here  to  come  immediately  to 
terms  with  him  ;  and  I  shall  advise  a  junction  of  interest,  rather  than 
a  tedious  Chancery  suit.  I  wish  you  would  copy  this  part  of  my 
letter  and  send  it  to  him ;  a  few  days  will  decide  whether  the  person 
goes  or  not ;  if  he  should,  he  will  go  from  me  and  the  family  here 
with  full  power  to  treat  with  Mr.  Nicholas,  finally  settle  the  terms, 
and  thus  put  an  end  to  enmity  and  litigation.  I  am  sure  the  medium 
of  a  third  person  is  all  that  is  wanting  to  bring  the  parties  perfectly 
to  accord.  The  sister-in-law  is  admirably  disposed  to  a  reconciliation. 
I  hope  this  will  be  effected,  as  one  interview  is  better  than  a  thousand 
letters.  If  the  person  should  go,  Mr.  Nicholas  must  receive  him  as 
he  deserves,  and  treat  him  as  he  will  merit.  I  had  written  the  above 
during  the  negociation  with  a  person  to  go  to  Mr.  Nicholas.  He  has, 
this  morning  the  24th  of  April,  decided  that  his  private  affairs  will 
not  permit  him.  I  shall  therefore  send  a  statement  of  the  family 
expectations  and  situation  here  drawn  up  by  as  eminent  a  pleader  as 
the  gentleman  who  composed  the  paper  in  England. 

I  shall  set  out  for  Cork  in  a  day  or  two,  from  which  place  you  shall 
hear  from  me ;  and  should  you  receive  any  intelligence  from  or  oi 
our  friends,  I  intreat  you  to  communicate  it  to  me  under  cover  to 
John  Cockayne,  Esq.,  to  be  left  at  the  Post-office,  Cork.  I  wish  you 
would  write  the  first  post  day  to  your  sister-in-law,  and  desire  her  to 
inform  Mr.  Nicholas,  that  to-morrow  I  send  off  two  letters  for  him 
from  his  friends  here,  containing  opinions  thoroughly  considered  and 
well  digested  by  the  first  counsel  here ;  as  such  he  may  shew  them, 
and  the  family  may  act  accordingly.  As  my  time  has  been  wholly 
employed  in  collecting  them,  and  as  they  come  from  the  first  and  most 
enlightened  sources,  let  your  sister-in-law  desire  Mr.  Nicholas  to  look 
out  for  them  as  matters  of  consequence :  they  contain  the  i*eal  state 
of  the  case. 

I  sincerely  wish  you  happiness,  and  that  of  your  family,  and  am 
truly, 

Yours, 

THOMAS  POPKINS. 

Do  not  fail  to  communicate  to  Mr.  Nicholas  by  the  means  of  your 
sister-in-law  what  I  have  written. 

Thomas  M'Lean — Examined  by  Mr.  Frankland. 
Q.  What  is  your  business  ?    A.  I  am  one  of  his  Majesty's  messengers. 


THK  KEV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  233 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ?     A.  In  London. 

[A  paper  was  then  produced  to  him.] 

Q.  Did  you  find  that  anywhere  ?  A.  Yes,  in  the  possession  of 
William  .Stone,  of  Oldford  in  Middlesex. 

Q.  On  what  occasion  ?  A.I  was  sent  with  Lauzun  another 
messenger,  to  take  him  into  custody,  and  we  found  it  in  a  drawer  in 
his  room  at  his  house  in  Oldford. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Ponsonby. 

Q.  Did  you  find  that  letter  in  Ireland  ?  A.  No :  it  was  found  at 
Oldford  in  England. 

[This  letter.  No.  2,  was  then  otfered  to  be  read.] 

Mr.  Ponsonby I  object  to  this  letter  being  read  in  evidence, 

because  it  was  not  found  in  the  prisoner's  custody ;  because  it  was 
not  found  in  the  county  in  which  the  treason  is  laid  in  the  indictment. 
But  it  is  found  in  another  kingdom,  and  therefore  cannot  be  read 
here.  In  Hensey's  case,  I  Bur.,*  Lord  Mansfield  said,  "  It  is  certain 
that  some  one  overt  act  must  be  proved  in  the  county,  where  the  in- 
dictment is  laid  :  indeed  if  any  one  be  so  proved  in  that  county,  it  will 
let  in  the  proof  of  others  in  other  counties."  But  it  is  not  asserted  nor 
can  it  be  supported,  that  papers  found  in  another  kingdom  can  be  read. 
Lord  Clonmel. — We  think  they  ofier  it  too  soon :  They  must 
prove  their  overt  acts,  and  then  read  this  paper  by  way  of  aggravation. 
Mr.  Fran  KL AND. — We  ofier  this  paper  in  evidence  in  order  to 
confirm  the  other  evidence  we  have  offered,  and  mean  to  give  to 
establish  the  overt  acts.  Here  is  a  paper  in  the  hand-writing  of  the 
prisoner,  and  it  cannot  be  contended  that  papers  in  his  hand-writing 
are  not  admissible- 
Lord  Clonmel. — Suppose  a  letter  had  gone  to  France,  to  which 
place  it  had  been  directed,  and  was  found  there,  could  it  not  be  read 
here  ? — beyond  a  doubt  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  scrihere  est 
agere  in  treason. 

Mr.  Ponsonby. — My  Lords,  that  rule  is  to  be  taken  with  restric- 
tions, and  never  was  laid  down  absolutely  but  in  Algernon  Sidney's 
case,f  whose  attainder  was  reversed  by  act  of  parliament ;  and  Judge 
Foster  says, J  the  rule  is  true  with  proper  limitations,-  and  from  his 
observations  the  rule  does  not  apply  in  this  case. 

*  Howell's  State  Trials,  vol.  19,  p.  1345;  and  1  Burr  647  :  3  Starkie  Evidence, 
1097.     Stone's  Case,  6  Term  Reports,  527. 

t  Howell  St.  T.  vol.  9,  p.  817-  The  grounds  of  the  reversal  of  the  attainder 
in  Sydney's  ease  were  these  : — An  illegal  return  of  jurors  ;  the  denial  of  lawful 
challenges  for  want  of  freehold  ;  the  insufficiency  of  legal  proof  to  establish  the 
charge  of  treason ;  that  a  paper  found  in  Sydney's  closet,  supposed  to  be  his 
hand-writing,  was  not  proved  by  the  testimony  of  any  of  the  witnesses  to  have 
been  written  by  him,  &c.,  2  Phillips  State  Trials,  111.  Mr.  Phillips  remarks — 
"  On  the  subject  of  these  writings,  the  strong  and  decisive  objection  against  their 
admissibility  is  that  before-mentioned  (which  it  is  remarkable  is  not  noticed  in  the 
act  of  reversal),  namely,  that  they  were  not  proved  to  be  connected  with  any 
design,  or  in  any  manner  to  relate  to  the  treasonable  practices  charged  in  the 
indictment.  If  they  had  been  written  by  Sydney,  relative  to  those  treasonable 
practices,  they  might  have  been  read  in  evidence  against  him  though  they  had 
never  been  published." 

X  Foster  198. 


234  TRIAL   OF 

Lord  Clonmel. — What  use  do  the  counsel  for  the  Crown  make  of 
this  paper? 

Mr,  Attorney- General. — My  Lords,  the  overt  act  laid  is,  that 
the  prisoner  encouraged  the  enemies  of  the  King,  and  adhered  to  them, 
and  that  he  compassed  the  death  of  the  King.  Then  the  proof  to 
establish  the  charge  is  this,  that  two  papers  were  sent,  directed  in  the 
terms,  and  enclosed  in  the  envelopes  your  Lordships  have  seen.  If 
we  shall  prove  that  these  letters  were  sent  to  the  Post-office  for  the 
purpose  attributed  to  them,  then  the  fact  will  be  established.  We 
have  proved  them  to  have  been  written  by  Cockayne  under  the 
directions  of  the  prisoner ;  that  they  were  addressed  to  persons  at 
Amsterdam  and  Hamburgh.  In  order  to  give  further  scope  and 
effect  to  that  evidence,  and  to  prove  that  those  letters  were  intended 
to  be  sent  abroad  we  offer  another  paper  in  evidence  to  shew,  that 
Jackson,  having  a  correspondence  with  persons  abroad,  did  send  this 
letter  to  Stone  in  England  (with  whom  we  have  proved  he  had  also 
a  correspondence)  informing  him  of  his  arrival  in  Ireland,  and  stating 
in  another,  that  the  goods  and  wares  were  arrived,  shewing  that 
Stone  was  the  medium  through  which  the  correspondence  passed. 
We  do  not  mean  to  give  this  letter  as  a  substantive  evidence  standing 
alone  by  itself,  but  going  with  the  others  in  support  of  the  charge. 
With  regai-d  to  the  rule  of  evidence,  papers  in  the  prisoner's  hand- 
writing are  not  to  be  disputed.  If  it  were  necessary  that  they  should 
be  found  upon  him,  all  the  letters  stopped  in  the  Post-office,  upon 
which  persons  have  been  hanged,  Avere  improperly  received.  The 
distinction  is  that  if  the  paper  be  not  in  the  party's  hand-writing,  it 
must  be  found  in  his  possession  to  connect  it  with  his  intention.  This 
paper  is  not  offered  as  evidence  of  an  overt  act,  but  as  evidence  coming 
from  the  party  accused,  and  offered  to  be  used  concurrent  with  other 
pieces  of  evidence  to  support  the  overt  act,  and  when  it  shall  be  read, 
we  shall  be  at  liberty  still  further  to  confirm  them  all,  and  therefore 
unless  some  case  be  cited,  which  we  are  not  apprized  of,  upon  the 
argument,  and  principle,  this  evidence  ought  to  be  received  and  the 
paper  read. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY. — My  Lords,  I  submit,  that  this  paper  should  not 
be  read.  This  like  every  other  thing  offered  in  evidence,  is  legal 
evidence,  or  it  is  not ; — there  is  no  such  thing  in  offering  evidence  to 
a  court,  as  saying,  it  is  part  of  the  evidence  to  prove  the  overt  act,  to 
go  connected  with  others,  so  as  to  make  all  together  legal  evidence. 
But  it  must  be  legal  in  the  first  instance.  If  the  gentlemen  are  to 
establish  the  overt  act  by  nine  pieces  of  evidence,  every  one  of  them 
ought  to  be  admissible  evidence  in  point  of  law,  because  after  the 
nine  are  received,  they  are  not  to  say,  that  all  of  them  taken  together 
will  make  legal  evidence.  This  paper  is  not  proved  to  have  been 
published  by  the  prisoner,  neither  Avas  it  within  the  kingdom  of 
Ireland,  much  less  in  the  county  where  the  prisoner  is  indicted.*  See 
what  the  distinction  was  in  Lord  Preston's  case.f  He  and  two  others 
had  procured  a  smack  to  carry  them  away ;  their  papers  were  seized ; 
among  the  papers  was  found  a  scheme  to  lay  before  the  King  of 

*  1  East  P.  C.  102,  104,  125;  3  Starkie  1097,  last  edition, 
t  12  Howell  St.  Tr.  72(i. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  235 

France.  It  was  insisted  that  no  overt  act  was  proved,  but  his  taking 
boat  in  Middlesex ;  the  papers  were  not  seized  in  Middlesex,  and 
were  therefore  not  sufficient  to  prove  any  overt  act  in  that  county. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — Lord  Preston  was  taken  in  Kent ;  the 
paper  was  found  in  Kent :  he  was  tried  in  Middlesex,  and  the  overt 
act  was  laid  there  ;  the  Court  did  not  stop  evidence  arising  in  Kent 
from  being  given  in  Middlesex.  He  took  boat  in  Middlesex,  and 
that  was  connected  with  the  transaction  in  Kent. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY — I  submit  that  the  Court  did  establish  the  point  I 
contend  for,  because  it  was  from  the  circumstance  of  his  taking  boat 
in  Middlesex  that  made  it  competent  to  the  Crown  to  produce  evidence 
of  papers  found  in  Kent.  The  Court  excluded  everything  done  in 
Kent,  and  said,  that  his  having  the  papers  upon  him  in  Middlesex, 
and  taking  boat  there,  justified  the  admission  of  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General — There  is  nothing  in  the  report  to  shew 
that  the  papers  were  in  his  possession,  when  he  took  boat  in  Middlesex. 

Lord  Clonmel — See  what  the  evidence  is.  Assimilate  it  to  the 
King  V.  Hensey.  This  is  either  introductory  evidence,  or  corroboi'a- 
tive.  Introductory  of  what  ? — to  evidence  of  one  of  the  overt  acts 
laid  in  the  indictment — applicable  either  to  the  charge  of  adhering  to 
the  King's  enemies,  or  compassing  the  King's  death.  How  then  does 
it  come  before  the  Court  ?  The  overt  act  is,  that  this  man  gave 
information  by  letter  to  the  King's  enemies  to  invade  this  country ; 
they  prove  a  letter  from  him  to  a  correspondent  in  a  masked  language, 
as  they  say ;  the  prisoner  may  explain  it,  and  shew  that  a  real 
transaction  subsisted.  This  letter  is  to  shew  an  intercourse  and 
correspondence  between  Stone  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  A  letter 
has  been  proved  in  the  same  sort  of  language,  all  in  the  hand- writing 
of  the  prisoner,  with  certain  marks  and  cyphers,  explanatory  of  what 
was  the  intercourse  between  them.  This  is  introductory  of  evidence 
bearing  upon  the  charge  in  the  indictment.  Can  it  be  denied  to  be 
the  hand-writing  of  the  prisoner,  or  that  it  was  directed  by  him.  I 
know  not  what  the  contents  of  it  are.  But  it  is  a  paper  in  the  hand- 
writing of  the  prisoner,  and  found  in  the  possession  of  his  correspondent, 
to  whom  he  wrote. 

Mr.  PoNsoNBY. — I  am  sensible  of  the  observations  of  the  Court. 
But  my  Lords,  this  is  a  mere  unpublished  paper,  unconnected  with 
any  circumstance  to  give  it  authenticity.  No  act  appears  to  have 
been  done,  and  with  regard  to  papers  written,  they  are  only  to  go  in 
evidence  where  the  rule  can  apply  of  scribere  est  agere,  where  anything 
has  been  done  to  carry  it  into  effect.  But  here  it  is  found  in  the 
possession  of  a  third  person,  and  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  how  he 
came  by  it. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes — I  do  not  see  a  necessity  for  adding  a  word 
to  what  my  Lord  Clonmel  has  said.  This  evidence  is  introductory 
and  it  is  also  corroborative  of  what  Cockayne  said.  I  do  not  feel  the 
objection  as  having  any  Aveight,  that  it  is  out  of  the  county,  or  in 
another  kingdom.  It  is  not  to  prove  the  overt  act  itself  that  this 
letter  is  offered : — the  overt  act  must  be  proved  in  the  county ;  but 
that  being  done,  evidence  in  other  counties  may  be  admitted,  otherwise 
in  Lord  Preston's  case  they  would  have  excluded  everything  but 
what  could  have  been  proved  in  IMiddlesex. 


236  TRIAL   OF 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — I  do  not  consider  the  evidence  now 
offered,  as  evidence  of  an  overt  act,  but  explanatory  of  that,  which 
pi'oves  the  overt  act.  Two  papers  have  been  proved,  and  this  is 
produced  to  shew,  quo  animo,  the  former  were  written.  They  are 
marked  with  a  cross  and  other  emblems,  and  this  letter  is  offered  to 
shew  the  prisoner's  intention  in  sending  those  others.  To  say,  that 
letters  or  papers  found  in  one  place  to  explain  the  intention  of  the  act 
done  in  another,  could  not  be  admitted,  would  be  dangerous.  Lord 
Pi'eston's  case  is  a  sti'ong  one,  because  there  the  evidence  found  in 
Kent  was  admitted  to  shew  quo  animo  he  took  boat  in  Middlesex. 
This  paper  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  the  prisoner,  and  the  only 
question  is  whether  it  may  not  explain  the  intention  of  his  conduct  in 
Ireland. 

[Here  was  read  the  paper,  No.  2.] 

A  Cross  f 

To  Monsieur  Daudebuscaille. 

(The  outward  cover.) 

To  Messrs.  Texier,  Angely  et  Massac, 

a'  Amsterdam. 
(The  inside  cover.) 

A  Cross  f 
(Outward  cover.) 

To  Mr.  Chapeaurouge, 

Merchant, 

Hamburgh. 

(To  each  is  added  a  recommendation  to  forward  the  inclosed.) 

Edward  Lauzun — Examined  by  Mr.  Frankland. 

Q.  Do  you  hold  any  employment?  A.  I  am  one  of  his  Majesty's 
messengers. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  paper  ? — (shewing  him  a  letter.  No.  1 .) 
A.  Yes,  I  found  it  in  the  apartment  of  William  Stone,  at  Oldfoi'd. 

[Here  read  the  paper  No.  1.] 
To  Mr.  William  Stone,  London. 

Dublin,  5th  April,  1794. 
Dear  Sir, 
Owing  to  a  variety  of  incidents,  which  I  will  explain  when  I  have 
the  pleasure  of  seeing  you,  I  have  been  prevented  writing  until  the 
present  moment.  Some  very  excellent  friends,  to  whom  I  owe  most 
singular  obligations,  being  apprized  of  my  arrival,  have  endeavoured 
to  render  me  service — and,  were  their  power  equal  to  their  wishes,  I 
am  confident  I  should  experience  the  benefit  of  their  good  intentions : 
Accepting,  as  I  do,  the  Avill  for  the  act,  they  have  a  claim  on  my 
gratitude. 

I  must  request  you  not  to  make  use  of  any  of  the  addresses  I  left 
you,  the  price  and  nature  of  the  article  being  entirely  changed. 

You  will  have  the  goodness  to  enclose  your  letter  or  letters  to  me, 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  237 

under  a  cover  thus  directed — John  Cockayne,  Esq.,  Hyde's   Coffee- 
house, Dame-sti'eet,  Dublin. 

Pray  write  immediately. 

I  request,  my  dear  Sir,  that  you  will  dedicate  an  instant,  on  the 
return  of  the  post,  in  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  this  letter  ;  and  if 
you  have  any  letters  from  the  family  at  Shields  which  regard  their 
affairs  in  this  country,  you  cannot  too  soon  enclose  them  to  me,  as  the 
assizes  at  Cork  are  about  to  commence. 

In  the  course  of  a  very  few  days,  I  will  give  you  some  information 
respecting  the  bills  which  you  commissioned  me  to  present. 

I  hope  your  lady  enjoys  better  health,  and  with  very  sincere  wishes 
for  her  and  your  happiness,  I  request  you  to  believe  me  your  real 
friend, 

THOMAS  POPKINS. 

Oliver  Carlton. — Examined  by  the  Attokney-Genekal. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  ?  A.  Yes.  I  assisted  in  arresting 
him  on  a  warrant  from  Lord  Clonmel  for  high  treason. 

Q.  Where  did  you  arrest  him  ?     A.  At  Hyde's  coffee-house. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  house  ?  A.  Up  two  pair  of  stairs,  back,  in 
bed. 

Q.  At  what  time  ?     A.  Ten  in  the  morning,  28th  April. 

Q.  Did  you  find  any  papers  in  the  room  ?  A.  I  found  several 
papers  on  a  table  and  others  in  a  trunk  in  the  room  where  he  slept. 

[The  papers  marked  E.  F.  G.  L.  N.  O.  shewn  to  the  witness.] 
Q.  Do  you  know  these  papers  ?     A.  Yes.     I  found  these  on  Mr. 
Jackson's  table. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Ponsonby. 

Q.  Was  the  door  shut  ?     A.  It  was  shut,  but  not  locked. 

Mr.  Frankland We  will   prove  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Stone, 

addressed  to  Mr.  Thomas  Popkins. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  object  to  this  evidence;  my  doubt  is  as  to  reading 
a  letter,  merely  because  it  was  found  in  the  chamber  where  Mr. 
Jackson  was  in  bed  ;  it  is  not  in  the  hand- writing  of  Mr.  Jackson. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant This  letter  Avas  found  on  Mr.  Jackson's 

table,  and  it  is  proved  that  he  was  the  Mr.  Thomas  Popkins  directed  to. 

Mr.  Attorney-Gener.ax Besides,  the  letter  to  which  this  was 

an  answer,  was  found  on  Stone. 

The  Court You  need  not  trouble  yourself:  it  is  good  evidence.* 

Q.  (By  a  Juror.)  AVas  there  another  bed  in  the  room  ? 

Witness. — No. 

Mr.  Jackson Sir,  there  was  another  bed  in  the  room. 

Witness If  there  was,  I  did  not  observe  it. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — Did  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  say  any 
thing  about  those  papers  ?  A.  He  was  very  much  agitated — he 
jumped  out  of  bed  and  ran  about  the  room  in  great  confusion — he 
said  he  did  not  care  about  any  but  one  particular  paper  ;  and  he  asked 
me  what  right  I  had  to  take  his  papers  ;  I  told  him  my  authority  ; 
that  I  had  a  Judge's  warrant. 

*  Fost.  196;  Hensey's  case,  1  Burr.  644;  Tooke's  ease,  East,  P.  C.  119; 
Stone's  case,  6  T.  R.  527. 


238  TRIAL   OF 

Mr.  Jackson — I  beg  leave  to  ask  this  question.  In  the  first 
place,  the  witness  is  wrong  as  to  the  fact  of  the  bed.  Now,  let  me 
ask  you,  did  I,  or  did  I  not,  when  you  were  taking  the  papers,  volun- 
tarily say,  there  is  the  key  of  my  portmanteau — take  it  ?  A.  You 
did. 

Mr.  Jackson — You  regarded  two  closets,  and  said  you  would 
have  them  open  ?     A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Jackson — And  I  opened  them  for  you  ?     A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Attokney-General — Were   any  of   the  papers  you   have 

now   seen,   in  that  trunk   that  you  have  mentioned  ?     A.  No the 

papers  there,  were  of  no  significance,  I  think 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Do  you  not  believe  that  that  paper  which  Mr. 
Jackson  expressed  such  anxiety  about  was  a  family  paper,  and  entirely 
of  a  private  nature  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Jackson. — Mr.  Attorney  knows  that  there  was  such  a  paper 
among  those  that  came  vnider  his  inspection. 

Mr.  Attorney-General, — I  do  not  know — there  were  some 
papers  that  related  to  private  affairs,  and  I  believe  they  have  been 
returned,  or  at  least  not  examined. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Was  there  among  them  a  paper  that  could  raise 
anxiety  in  the  prisoner  ? 

Attorney-General — I  think  thei'e  was  one  that  reasonably 
might  raise  some  anxiety  in  him. 

Reuben  Smith. — Examined  by  Mr.  Attorney-General. 

Q,  Do  you  know  Mr.  Stone  of  Oldford  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  write  ?     A.  Yes,  frequently. 

Q.  Look  at  that  paper  (shews  witness  a  paper)  whose  hand- writing 
is  that  ?  A.  I  believe  it  is  the  hand- writing  of  Mr.  Stone  of  Oldford 
and  of  Rutland-place. 

Q.  Look  at  the  signature — whose  hand- writing  is  it?  A.  The 
signature  is  the  name  of  Stone  reversed ;  but  I  think  the  words  W. 
Enots  are  Mr.  Stone's  hand- writing. 

Q,  Whose  hand-writing  is  the  body  of  the  letter  ?     A.  Mr.  Stone's. 

[The  Clei-k  of  the  Crown  then  read  this  letter  (marked  L)  as  follows  :] 

Mr.  Thomas  Popkins. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  yesterday  received  yours  of  the  5th  inst.  I  am  happy  you  find 
yourself  so  agreeably  situated  where  you  are.  I  have  received  no 
letter  for  you,  but  the  day  after  you  left  me,  I  received  one  to  say 
your  first  letters  were  received.  I  have  received  another  since,  in 
which  mine  was  acknowledged  which  I  wrote  the  post  after  Gillet 
was  with  us,  but  no  mention  was  made  of  any  other. 

I  have  not  made  use  of  what  you  left  with  me.  What  a  wonderful 
change  there  is  in  the  family.  Will  it  tend  to  good  ?  I  confess  I 
think  better  of  it  now  than  before.  I  want  what  you  possess  a 
knowledge  of  the  several  branches  of  it  to  form  a  proper  judgment  of 
the  conduct  in  the  last  fracas. 

Political  affairs  seem  taking  a  great  turn  if  we  take  into  our  view 
the  great  whole.  I  cease  to  wonder  at  anything,  we  seem  I  think  to 
be   the  only  party  resolved  to  go  on  with  vigour.      The  King  of 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  239 

Prussia  publicly  avows  his  disinclination,  and  I  think  the  French  as 
well  as  the  Emperor  shew  it  by  their  inaction ;  but  to  what  can  the 
proscription  now  going  forward  in  Paris  tend,  will  it  purify  them  and 
make  their  conduct  less  exceptionable  and  their  government  more 
fixed  and  permanent.  I  really  feel  a  kind  of  awe  in  thinking  on  those 
subjects,  and  see  every  day  new  matter  to  astonish  me. 
We  are  all  tolerably  well,  and  I  remain. 
Yours  very  truly, 

W.  ENOTS. 
April  11th,  1794. 

P.S. — Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  received  a  letter  in  which 
is,  "  I  have  received  our  friends  letters,  and  you  must  tell  him,  that 
having  given  them  to  the  proper  people,  he  must  in  future  address  his 
friend  Nicholas  and  not  me ;"  and  in  the  conclusion  he  particularly 
I'equests  he  may  not  be  written  to. 

I  feel  particularly  happy  that  the  several  letters  have  been  received, 
and  I  trust  that  even  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  family  they 
will  produce  proper  effects. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — "We  shall  now  read  the  paper.  No.  5, 
there  are  two  covers,  both  directed  by  Cockayne  ;  the  first  is  directed, 
"  A  Messrs.  Texier,  Augely  et  Massac,  A  Amsterdam."  Within  this 
is  enclosed  a  second  cover  directed,  "  A  Monsieur  M.  Daudebuscaille, 
A  Amsterdam" — and  within  this  is  the  paper  which  we  shall  now 
read,  enclosed  in  a  cover  marked  on  the  outside  with  a  large  black 
cross,  and  within  Avhich  is  written,  "  Remember  me  to  Laignelot  and 
all  our  friends." 

[The  Clei'k  of  the  Crown  then  read  this  paper  (marked  C)  as  follows :] 

The  situation  of  Ireland  and  England  is  fundamentally  different  in 
this — the  government  of  England  is  national,  that  of  Ireland  provincial. 
The  interest  of  the  first  is  the  same  with  that  of  the  people — of  the 
last  directly  opposite.  The  people  of  Ireland  are  divided  into  three 
sects  ;  the  Established  Church,  the  Dissenters,  and  the  Catholics  ;  the 
first  infinitely  the  smallest  portion,  have  engrossed  besides  the  whole 
church  patronage,  all  the  profits  and  honours  of  the  country  exclu- 
sively, and  a  very  great  share  of  the  landed  property.'  They  are  of 
course  aristocrats,  adverse  to  any  change,  and  decided  enemies  of  the 
French  Revolution.  The  Dissenters,  which  are  much  more  numerous, 
are  the  most  enlightened  body  of  the  nation,  they  are  steady  republicans, 
devoted  to  liberty  and  through  all  the  stages  of  the  French  Revolution, 
have  been  enthusiastically  attached  to  it.  The  Catholics,  the  great 
body  of  the  people,  are  in  the  lowest  degree  of  ignorance,  and  are 
ready  for  any  change,  because  no  change  can  make  them  worse.  The 
whole  peasantry  of  Ireland,  the  most  oppressed  and  wretched  in 
Europe,  may  be  said  to  be  Catholic.  They  have  within  these  two 
years  received  a  certain  degree  of  information  and  manifested  a 
proportionate  degree  of  discontent  by  various  insurrections,  &c.  They 
are  a  bold,  hardy  race,  and  make  excellent  soldiers.  There  is  nowhere 
a  higher  spii'it  of  aristocracy  than  in  all  the  privileged  orders,  the 
clergy  and  gentry  of  Ireland,  down  to  the  very  lowest,  to  countervail 
which,  there  appears  now  a  spirit  rising  in  the  people  which  never 
existed  before,  but  which  is  spreading  most  rapidly  as  appears  by  the 


240  TRIAL   OF 

Defenders  as  tliey  are  called,  and  other  insurgents.  If  the  people  of 
Ireland  be  4,500,000,  as  it  seems  probable  they  are,  the  Established 
Church  may  be  reckoned  at  450,000,  the  Dissenters  at  900,000,  the 
Catholics  at  3,150,000.  The  pi-ejudices  in  England  are  adverse  to 
the  French  nation  under  whatever  form  of  government.  It  seems 
idle  to  suppose  the  present  rancour  against  the  French  is  owing  merely 
to  their  being  republicans  ;  it  has  been  cherished  by  the  manners  of 
four  centuries  and  aggravated  by  continual  wars.  It  is  morally 
certain  that  any  invasion  of  England  would  unite  all  ranks  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  invaders.  In  Ireland,  a  conquered,  oppressed  and  insulted 
country,  the  name  of  England  and  her  power  is  universally  odious, 
save  with  those  who  have  an  interest  in  maintaining  it :  a  body 
however  only  formidable  from  situation  and  property,  but  which  the 
first  convulsion  would  level  in  the  dust ;  on  the  contrary,  the  great 
bulk  of  the  people  of  Ireland  would  be  ready  to  throw  off  the  yoke  in 
this  country,  if  they  saw  any  force  sufficiently  strong  to  resort  to  for 
defence  until  arrangements  could  be  made  ;  the  Dissenters  are  enemies 
to  the  English  power  from  reason  and  from  reflection,  the  Catholics 
from  a  hatred  of  the  English  name  ;  in  a  word,  the  prejudices  of  one 
country  are  directly  adverse  of  the  other,  directly  favourable  to  an 
invasion.  The  government  of  Ireland  is  only  to  be  looked  upon  as  a 
government  of  force,  the  moment  a  superior  force  appears,  it  would 
tumble  at  once,  as  being  founded  neither  in  the  interests  nor  in  the 
affections  of  the  people.  It  may  be  said,  the  people  of  Ireland  shew 
no  political  exertion.  In  the  first  place,  public  spirit  is  completely 
depressed  by  the  recent  persecutions  of  several.  The  Convention  act, 
the  Gunpowder,  &c.  &c.  Declarations  of  government,  parliamentary 
unanimity,  or  declarations  of  grand  juries,  all  proceeding  from 
aristocrats,  whose  interest  is  adverse  to  that  of  the  people,  and  who 
think  such  conduct  necessary  for  their  security  are  no  obstacles  ;  the 
weight  of  such  men  falls  in  the  general  welfare,  and  their  own 
tenantry  and  dependants  would  desert  and  turn  against  them ;  the 
people  have  no  Avay  of  expressing  their  discontent  civiliter  which  is 
at  the  same  time  greatly  aggravated  by  those  measures,  and  they  are 
on  the  otlier  hand  in  that  semi-barbarous  state  which  is  of  all  others, 
the  best  adapted  for  making  war.  The  spirit  of  Ireland  cannot 
therefore  be  calculated  from  newspaper  publications,  county  meetings, 
&c.  at  which  the  gentry  only  meet  and  speak  for  themselves.  They 
are  so  situated  that  they  have  but  one  way  left  to  make  their  senti- 
ments known,  and  that  is  by  war.  The  church  establishments  and 
tythes  are  very  severe  grievances,  and  have  been  the  cause  of 
numberless  local  insurrections ;  in  a  word,  from  reason,  reflection, 
interest,  prejudice,  the  spirit  of  change,  the  misery  of  the  great  bulk 
of  the  nation,  and  above  all,  the  hatred  of  the  English  name  resulting 
from  the  tyranny  of  near  seven  centuries,  there  seems  little  doubt  but 
an  invasion  and  sufficient  force  would  be  supported  by  the  people. 
There  is  scarce  any  ai-my  in  the  countiy,  and  the  militia,  the  bulk  of 
whom  are  Catholics,  would  to  a  moral  certainty  refuse  to  act,  if  they 
saw  such  a  force  as  they  could  look  to  for  support. 

Mr.  Attorney-General The  other  letter  directed  to  Hamburgh, 

is  in  the  same  words  with  this  ;  Ave  have  also  proved  two  other  papers 
ill  the  same  words,  found  on  Mr.  Jackson's  table. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  241 

Lord  Clonmel. — Read  part  of  each  of  those  papers  found  on 
Jackson's  table  ;  let  their  identity  appear  in  proof. 

[The  Clerk  of  the  Crown  read  part  of  each  of  the  papers  marked 
(U)  and  (E)  accordingly,  wliich  appeared  to  be  counterparts  of  the 
paper  marked  (C)  and  (D)  directed  to  Monsieur  Chapeaurouge,  a 
Hamburgh.  (E  E)  two  copies  found  on  Jackson's  table.] 

Mr.  Attorney-General — We  will  now  prove  the  paper  found 
by  Mr.  Oliver  Carleton  on  Mr.  Jackson's  table,  which  is  The  State 
of  England  that  has  been  so  much  alluded  to. 

[Hei'e  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  read  the  letter  marked  (F)  as  follows :] 

Exclusive  of  positive  information  of  the  temper  of  the  country,  it 
may  be  known  by  people  at  a  distance  by  the  following  signs : 

There  are  no  petitions  against  the  Avar. 

There  are  courtly  verdicts  given  by  juries  with  few  exceptions. 

There  are  no  mobs,  though  much  distressed. 

There  is  much  readiness  to  enlist  as  soldiers. 

There  is  much  quietness  in  being  impressed  on  the  part  of  seamen. 

The  votes  of  parliament  are  neaxdy  unanimous,  though  the  parlia- 
ment has  run  through  half  its  length,  and  the  members  of  the  house 
of  Commons  look  to  their  re-election. 

The  stability  of  Lord  Chatham  contines  in  defiance  of  all  his 
neglects. 

Terror  pervades  the  friends  of  liberty  who  would  soon  shew  a 
different  appearance  if  they  were  countenanced  by  the  majority  of 
the  people. 

The  temper  of  England  is  in  favour  of  the  first  French  Revolution 
but  not  of  the  second.  However,  on  the  whole  it  shews  symptoms  of 
being  adverse  to  the  present  situation  of  the  Avar,  not  from  disliking 
its  principle,  but  from  seeing  little  profit  in  it.  At  the  same  time, 
though  they  think  its  main  object  unattainable  (namely  the  overthrow 
of  the  present  French  system)  they  Avould  be  moi'e  earnest  for  peace 
had  they  either  suffered  enough,  or  did  they  think  the  present  French 
Government  sincerely  disposed  to  peace. 

There  are  many  persons  attached  to  the  principles  of  the  French 
Revolution  in  England,  if  they  are  reckoned  numerically,  but  they 
are  as  nothing  compared  to  the  great  mass  of  the  people  Avho  are 
indisposed  to  them. 

In  Scotland  the  proportion  of  Democrats  is  increasing,  but  they  are 
as  yet  a  small  minority. 

Ireland  will  follow  the  Democracy  of  Scotland,  each  of  these 
countries  wants  time  only  to  con\'ince  itself  in  its  OAvn  Avay,  but  it 
Avill  not  be  convinced  by  a  French  in\'asion. 

If  France  Avere  to  invade  England  CA'Ciy  man  Avould  turn  out 
from  good  will  or  from  fear,  and  the  few  who  are  discontented  Avould 
be  quelled  Avith  ease,  as  the  French  citizens  were  by  La  Fayette  in 
the  Champ  de  Mars,  or  the  disaffected  lately  by  the  Commissioners 
in  Alsace. 

There  could  be  but  one  line  of  conduct  for  Englishmen  to  pursue, 
should  the  country  be  invaded.     They  must  defend  it. 

Wars  being  but  the  means  of  attaining  peace,  and  the  Avell-meaning 
among  the  subjects  of  the  Confederates,  being  told  that  the  French 

R 


242  TRIAL  OF 

are  so  adverse  to  peace,  or  ask  such  preliminaries,  that  it  is  in  vain  to 
treat  with  them ;  it  would  be  highly  useful  if  France  declared  after 
any  new  successes  which  she  may  hereafter  attain, 

Her  avei'sion  to  conquest. 

Her  disposition  to  peace. 

Her  desire  that  other  nations  should  govern  themselves. 

Her  determination  of  changing  this  system  if  the  war  against  her 
is  continued.  And  it  would  be  useful  also  if  every  convenient 
opportunity  were  taken  of  declaring  that  her  present  government  is 
revolutionary,  and  that  the  constitution  of  June  last  will  be  acted 
upon  at  the  peace  ;  and  also  if  she  declared  her  regret  at  the  necessity 
of  using  harsh  measures,  and  now  and  then  employed  philanthropic 
language  which  has  an  astonishing  effect  in  pacifying  the  English  and 
indeed  pacifying  Europe. 

It  would  tend  much  to  conciliate  the  minds  of  the  English  were  the 
Convention  to  deci'ee  the  liberation  of  aU  the  English  now  in  a  state 
of  arrest  unaccused  of  crimes,  and  restoring  to  them  their  property, 
at  the  same  time  allowing  them  to  leave  the  country  within  a  certain 
space  of  time. 

It  would  tend  also  much  to  create  an  aversion  to  the  war,  were  the 
Convention  to  decree  the  terms  on  which  they  would  make  peace. 
This  conduct  would  be  magnanimous,  and  if  they  did  not  hold  out 
terms  extravagant,  the  people  of  this  country  would  not  hesitate  to 
speak  their  aversion  to  a  continuance  of  the  war. 

It  would  be  very  advisable  to  have  copies  of  the  more  important 
decrees  of  reports  lodged  at  Havre  to  come  hither  by  neutral  vessels 
for  the  purpose  of  being  translated. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — A-Ve  will  now  read  another  paper 
proved  to  have  been  found  on  Mr.  Jackson's  table ;  a  note  from  Mr. 
Hamilton  Rowan  to  Mr.  Jackson. 

[Here  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  read  a  paper  marked  (O)  as  follows  :] 

Jackson,  Esq.,  Hyde's  Coffee-house,  Dame-street. 

Will  you  be  so  good  as  to  share  my  breakfast  with  me  to-morrow 
at  nine,  which  I  am  particularly  desirous  of — as  I  find  a  party  made 
for  dinner  cannot  take  place.  I  need  not  say  that  by  nine  I  mean 
nine  or  as  near  it  as  you  can,  for  I  have  hopes  that  a  third  person  will 
in  that  case  take  his  share  before  he  leaves  town,  which  I  find  he  is 
forced  to  do  in  the  course  of  the  morning. 

A.  HAMILTON  ROWAN. 
Newgate,  April  15th,  1794. 
Mr.  Attorney-General. — We  shall  read  also  Mr.  Tone's  note, 
found  also  on  Mr.  Jackson's  table. 
[Here  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  read  a  paper  marked  (N)  as  follows :] 

Jackson,  Esq. 

Mr.  Tone  presents  his  compliments  to  Mr.  Jackson,  and  is 
extremely  concerned  that  indispensable  law  business  hurries  him  out 
of  town  to-morrow  morning.  He  is  of  course  depi'ived  of  the  honour 
of  attending  Mr.  Jackson  at  dinner,  but  will  embrace  the  first  moment 
of  his  return,  which  he  hopes  will  be  in  a  week,  to  pay  his  respects  to 
Mr.  Jackson. 

Tuesday  Morn. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  243 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — "We  shall  offer  one  piece  of  evidence 
more  ;  the  letter  written  by  John  Holford  Stone  of  Paris,  recommend- 
ing the  prisoner  to  Mr.  Home  Tooke  ;  it  was  found  on  the  table  in 
the  prisoner's  room  when  he  was  arrested. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — This  is  not  the  best  evidence  the  nature  of  the  case 
admits  ;  if  Mr.  Stone  wrote  any  letter,  he  is  the  person  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  offer  it  as  a  paper  found  in  the 
possession  of  the  prisoner ;  but  added  to  that,  I  wish  to  prove  that  it 
is  the  hand-writing  of  Mr.  Stone  of  Paris.  If  Mr.  Stone  was  here 
he  could  not  be  examiited  as  to  this  letter,  because  it  would  be  to  ask 
him  whether  he  was  a  conspirator :  it  is  to  me  a  matter  of  indifference 
whether  it  is  proved  or  not — I  offer  a  witness  to  prove  his  hand- 
writing— I  care  not  about  the  event. 

Lord  Clonmel I  should  be  inclined  to  admit  this  evidence  if  it 

were  necessary,  but  I  should  think  it  is  not. 

[Mr.  Attorney- General  being  of  opinion  that  the  letter  was  material 
evidence,  it  was  read  as  follows :] 

John  Home  Tooke,  London. 

Paris,  25  Nivose — Second  Year  of  the 
Republic,  one  and  indivisible. 
My  dear  Friend, 

The  circumstances  of  the  two  countries  have  hitherto  prevented 
me  from  giving  or  receiving  any  information  respecting  you,  for  as 
there  have  been  few  or  no  other  means  of  communication  than  the 
post,  I  have  had  the  traitorous  correspondence  bill  too  much  before 
my  eyes,  to  hazard  your  tranquility,  though  I  had  nothing  to  fear  for 
my  own ;  this  however  will  be  delivered  to  yovx  by  a  gentleman,  a 
citizen,  I  should  have  said,  to  whom  you  have  been  heretofore  known, 
and  I  introduce  him  as  one  who  will  be  able  to  give  you  the  most 
accurate  information  of  what  is  doing,  and  has  been  done  here — and 
recommend  him  also  as  the  person  to  whom  you  may  confide  your 
own  sentiments  respecting  the  state  of  affairs  in  this  country  or  your 
own. 

As  I  know  that  your  prudence  keeps  some  pace  with  your  patriot- 
ism, you  may  be  satisfied  that  I  am  sure  of  the  principles  of  the  man 
I  thus  confidentially  introduce  to  you,  and  thus  much  you  may  repose 
on  me.  As  to  the  rest,  I  leave  you  to  arrange  it,  wishing  myself  a 
third  in  the  party. 

And  now  my  patriotic  friend,  let  me  offer  you  my  warmest  and 
most  heartfelt  congratulations  on  the  immense  prospect  of  public 
happiness  which  is  opening  befoi'e  us ;  you  are  amongst  the  small 
number  of  those  who  in  the  worst  of  times  have  never  despaired  of 
the  cause  of  liberty,  and  you  are  the  only  one  who  when  the  name 
was  but  a  barbarism  amongst  us,  taiight  the  great  principles  of  sacred 
equality  which  we  have  so  completely  reduced  to  practice.  I  look 
forward  with  transport  and  joy,  to  the  moment  when  the  doctrines 
which  you  have  preached  shall  receive  their  due  accomplishment, 
when  the  various  parties  of  ministerialists  and  oppositionists,  dissenters 
and  churchmen,  nobles,  priests  and  kings  shall  sink  into  one  undis- 
tinguished mass  of  ruins,  and  nothing  shall  be  seen  or  acknowledged 
but  the  people,  the  sacred  voice  of  the  people. 


244  TRIAL,   OF 

The  little  commission  wliicli  you  gave  me  to  the  milliner,  I  have 
properly  executed ;  it  was  to  have  been  sent  to  the  ladies  the  last 
spring,  but  the  untoAvardness  of  events  at  that  time  hindered  the  com- 
pletion, and  I  could  not  find  also  any  one  to  Avhom  I  could  properly 
entrust  it,  the  fashion  being  a  little  changed ;  if  nothing  unforeseen 
happens  to  hinder  it,  you  may  expect  to  have  it  over  in  two  months 
at  farthest ;  and  under  happier  auspices  than  the  last  spring ;  since 
the  fashion  is  so  much  improved,  and  I  have  taken  all  the  precautions 
and  even  more  than  you  intrusted  me  with  at  Tuffins  ;  but  the 
sending  it  as  you  may  suppose  will  depend  on  circumstances. 

I  leave  to  the  friend  I  introduce  to  you  the  relation  of  the  history 
of  this  country  for  the  twelve  months  last  past.  You  will  have  fallen 
into  a  thousand  errors  on  the  subject  of  our  politics,  as  I,  though  on 
the  spot,  have  done,  but  I  think  I  now  see  land. 

God  bless  you,  we  shall  meet  under  happier  circumstances  than 
our  last,  and  drink  a  cool  bottle  of  good  Burgundy  under  the  shade 
of  our  trees,  an  early  day  in  the  next  summer,  if  you  can  spare  so 
much  time  from  your  legislative  or  ministerial  avocations. 

Health  and  fraternity, 

J.  H.  STONE. 

Mr.  Attorney-General, — As  some  attempt  has  been  made  to 
discredit  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Cockayne,  we  will  now  produce  a 
witness  to  establish  his  credit. 

Mr.  Cdrran There  has  not  been  any  evidence  called  on  our  side 

to  impeach  the  character  of  Mr.  Cockayne.  The  gentlemen  them- 
selves shew  that  they  liave  a  good  opinion  of  his  credit,  when  they 
want  to  hoop  him  before  he  is  cracked.  I  never  saw  such  a  course 
before. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — Then  you  shall  see  it  now,  and  I  hope 
with  success ;  I  think  we  have  a  right  to  call  evidence  to  a  witness's 
character,  whether  it  has  been  attempted  to  be  impeached  by  other 
evidence,  or  by  something  coming  out  on  his  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Curran. — I  am  driven,  I  find,  to  state  the  ground  of  my 
objection  ; — I  did  not  think  it  could  be  resisted.  I  conceive  the 
unifoi'm  rule  of  law  to  be,  that  if  the  credit  of  a  witness  is  impeached, 
that  witness  may  purge  the  impeachment  by  contradicting  the  allega- 
tions of  the  impeachment ;  but  I  submit  it  that  this  rule  can  hold  only 
where  evidence  aliunde  is  resorted  to,  to  impeach  the  credit  of  the 
witness.  That  the  nature  of  this  case  makes  the  application  of  the 
rule  unnecessary ;  the  rule  is,  that  evidence  may  be  called  to 
contradict  the  impeachment — now,  on  what  is  the  impeachment  here, 
if  any  there  be,  founded  ? — on  the  evidence  of  the  man  himself.  I 
never  heard  of  evidence  being  called  for  a  man  to  rebut  a  man's  own 
evidence — to  call  a  witness  to  rebut  something,  is  to  call  a  witness 
contrary  to  something  ;  then  the  witness  has  been  impeached — 
how?  he  was  asked,  were  you  tried  for  perjury?  Yes,  said  he,  and 
acquitted ;  and  honourably ;  then  the  evidence  oifered  goes  to  rebut 
Cockayne's  own  evidence.  This  then  is  an  unusual  and  extraordinary 
proceeding,  and  I  trust  therefore  that  you  will  be  of  opinion  that  this 
evidence  ought  not  to  be  received. 

Loi'd  Clonmel. — We  are  of  opinion  that  this  man  may  be  produced 
to  this  transaction,  for  what  is  it  to  do  ?  it  is  to   produce  several 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  245 

witnesses  to  corroborate  the  same  fact.  Cockayne  says  he  was  tried 
for  perjury,  and  acquitted;  now,  the  jury  may  believe  that  he  was 
tried  and  not  believe  one  woi-d  of  what  he  said  about  his  acquittal ; 
then  you  produce  evidence  to  supply  this. 

Mr.  Justice  Chambbrlaine. — I  think  the  testimony  of  Cockayne 
has  been  attempted  to  be  impeached ;  whether  with  success  or  not,  I 
do  not  know  ;  but  the  cross-examination  could  have  had  no  other 
object ;  now  is  he  not  to  be  corroborat-ed  in  a  fact  material  to  establish 
his  credit  ?* 

[The  Court  having  overruled  the  objection,  the  witness  was  called.] 

Robert  Mounsey. — Examined  by  the  Solicitor-General. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live,  Sir  ?  A.  In  Castle-street,  Holborn,  in  the 
city  of  London. 

Q.  Of  what  profession  are  you  ?  A.  I  am  an  attorney  and  solicitor 
of  Westminster  Hall. 

Q.  What  paper  is  that  which  you  hold  in  your  hand  ?  A.  It  is  an 
office  copy  of  the  indictment  and  acquittal  of  John  Cockayne  who  was 
examined  here  this  day. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  trial  of  Cockayne  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Have  you  compared  that  copy  ?     A.  I  did  both  ways. 

Q.  And  saw  it  attested  by  the  proper  officer.     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  circumstances  that  passed  upon  the  trial  ? 
A.  I  recollect  what  Cockayne  related,  and  everything  he  has  said 
is  perfectly  true. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  else  ?  A.  Mr.  Garrow  who  Avas  his 
counsel,  said  that  they  had  not  produced  a  copy  of  the  judgment,  and 
that  Cockayne  could  take  advantage  of  it,  but  Cockayne  said  he  would 
not  have  any  advantage  taken,  but  that  he  would  either  be  found 
guilty  or  acquitted  on  the  merits. 

Q.  How  did  the  prosecutor  conduct  himself  ?  A.  He  seemed  to  be 
very  forward,  and  Mr.  JMainwariug,  who  was  the  chairman,  and  one 
of  the  Prothonotaries  who  was  to  tax  the  bill  of  costs,  called  on 
Fletcher,  the  prosecutor,  and  desired  him  not  to  be  so  very  forward. 

Q.  Did  any  friends  attend  Cockayne  on  his  trial  ?  A.  Mr.  Impey, 
who  wrote  Impey's  Practice,  Mr.  Lowton  the  Marshal,  and  several 
respectable  people  came  forward  as  his  friends. 

Q.  Was  the  acquittal  on  the  merits  ?  A.  It  was.  He  was  acquitted 
on  the  prosecutor's  evidence,  without  calling  a  witness. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Ponsonby. 

Q.  Did  Cockayne  ever  appear  for  you  as  a  witness  in  any  cause  at 
York?     A.  Never. 

Q.  Is  he  a  particular  acquaintance  of  yours  ?     A.  He  is  not. 

Q.  A^^iat  is  your  motive  in  coming  forward  this  day  ?  A.  Because 
I  thought  him  very  ill  used. 

Q.  Had  you  not  any  other  business  here  ?  A.  None  other  but  to 
give  an  account  of  this  transaction. 

*  Bishop  of  Durham  v.  Beaumont,  1  Camp,  207  ;   R.  v.  Clarke,  2  Starkib's 
c.  241. 


246 


TRIAL  OF 


John  Cockayne  called  up  by  Mr.  Curran. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  house  did  you  lie  ?     A.  I  lay  on  the  same 

floor  with  Mr.  Jackson. 

Q.  Who  usually  got  up  first  ?     A.   I  was  generally  up  before  him, 
Q.  Have  you  heard  there  were  any  papers  found  in  his  chamber  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Had  you  any  papers  in  his  chamber  the  evening  before  ?  I 
should  think  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  to  any  person  that  you  had  the  papers  which 
were  found  there  in  your  hands  at  twelve  o'clock  the  night  before  ? 
A.  I  never  did. 

Mr.  Curran — My  lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  am  sure  the 
attention  of  the  court  must  be  a  good  deal  fatigued.  I  am  sure, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  your  minds  must  of  necessity  be  fatigued 
also.  Whether  counsel  be  fatigued  or  not,  is  matter  very  little  worth 
the  observation  that  may  be  made  upon  it.  I  am  glad  that  it  is  not 
necessary  for  me  to  add  a  great  deal  to  the  labour,  either  of  the  court, 
or  the  jury.  Of  the  court  I  must  have  some  knowledge — of  the  jury 
I  certainly  am  not  ignorant.  I  know  it  is  as  unnecessary  for  me  to 
say  much,  or  perhaps  anything  to  inform  the  court,  as  it  would  be 
ridiculous  to  affect  to  lecture  a  jury  of  the  description  I  have  the 
honour  to  address.  I  know  I  address  a  court,  anxious  to  expound 
fairly,  and  impartially,  the  law  of  the  country,  without  any  appre- 
hension of  the  consequences,  and  effect  of  any  prosecution.  In  the 
jury  I  am  looking  to  now,  I  know  I  address  twelve  sensible  and 
respectable  men  of  my  country,  who  are  as  conscious  as  I  am  of  the 
great  obligation  to  which  they  have  pledged  themselves  by  their  oath, 
to  decide  upon  the  question  fairly,  without  listening  to  passion,  or 
being  swayed  by  prejudice — without  thinking  of  anything  except  the 
charge  which  has  been  made,  and  the  evidence  which  has  been  brought 
in  support  of  that  charge.  They  know  as  well  as  I  do,  that  the  great 
object  of  a  jury  is  to  protect  the  country  against  crimes,  and  to  protect 
individuals  against  all  accusation,  that  is  not  founded  in  truth.  They 
will  remember — I  know  they  will  remember,  that  the  great  object  of 
their  duty  is,  according  to  the  expression  of  a  late  venerated  judge  in 
another  country,  that  they  are  to  come  into  the  box  with  their  minds 
like  white  paper,  upon  which  prejudice,  or  passion,  or  bias,  or  talk, 
or  hope,  or  fear,  has  not  been  able  to  scrawl  anything.  That  you, 
gentlemen,  come  into  the  box,  standing  indifferent  as  you  stood 
unsworn. 

In  the  little,  gentlemen,  that  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  addressing 
to  you,  I  shall  rest  the  fate  of  it  upon  its  intrinsic  weight.  I  shall 
not  leave  the  case  in  concealment.  If  there  be  no  ground  on  which  the 
evidence  can  be  impeached,  I  will  venture  to  say  I  will  neither  bark  at 
it,  nor  scold  it,  in  lieu  of  giving  it  an  answer.  Whatever  objection 
I  have  to  make,  shall  be  addressed  to  your  reason.  I  will  not  say 
they  are  great,  or  conclusive,  or  unanswerable  objections.  I  shall 
submit  them  to  you  nakedly  as  they  appear  to  me.  If  they  have 
weight,  you  will  give  it  to  them.  If  they  have  not,  a  great  promise 
on  my  part  will  not  give  anticipated  weight  to  that  whose  debility  will 
appear  when  it  comes  to  be  examined. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  247 

Gentlemen,  you  are  empannelled  to  try  a  charge.  It  consists  of  two 
offences  particularly  described  in  the  indictment.  The  first  question 
is,  what  is  the  allegation  ?  In  the  first  branch,  the  prisoner  is  indicted 
upon  a  statute,  which  inflicts  the  pains  and  penalties  of  high  treason 
upon  any  man,  who  shall  compass  or  imagine  the  king's  death.  The 
nature  of  the  offence,  if  you  required  any  comment  on  it,  has  been 
learnedly,  and  I  must  add,  candidly  commented  upon  by  Mr.  Attorney- 
General  in  stating  the  case.  The  second  part  is,  that  the  prisoner 
did  adhere  to  the  king's  enemies.  By  the  law  of  this  country,  there 
are  particular  rules,  applicable  to  cases  of  prosecutions  for  high 
treason,  contradistinguished  from  all  the  other  branches  of  the 
criminal  law.  The  nature  of  the  offence  called  for  this  peculiarity 
of  regulation.  There  is  no  species  of  charge  to  which  innocent  men 
may  more  easily  be  made  victims,  than  that  of  offences  against  the 
state,  and  therefore  it  was  necessary  to  give  an  additional  protection 
to  the  subject.  There  is  an  honest  impulse  in  the  natural  and 
laudable  loyalty  of  every  man,  that  warms  his  passions  strongly 
against  the  person  who  endeavours  to  disturb  the  public  quiet  and 
security ;  it  was  necessary  therefore  to  guard  the  subject  against  the 
most  dangerous  of  all  abuses,  the  abuse  of  a  virtue,  by  extraordinary 
vigilance.  There  was  another  reason : — there  is  no  charge  which  is 
so  vague  and  indefinite,  and  yet  would  be  more  likely  to  succeed, 
than  charging  a  man  as  an  enemy  to  the  state.  There  is  no  case  in 
which  the  venality  of  a  base  informer,  could  have  greater  expectation 
of  a  base  reward.  Therefore,  gentlemen,  it  was  necessary  to  guard 
persons  accused  from  the  over  hasty  vii'tue  of  a  jury  on  the  one  hand, 
and  on  the  other  from  being  made  the  sacrifice  of  the  base  and  rank 
prostitution  of  a  depraved  informer.  How  has  the  law  done  this  ? 
By  pointing  out  in  terms,  these  rules  and  orders  that  shall  guide  the 
court,  and  bind  the  jury  in  the  verdict  they  shall  give.  The  man 
shall  be  a  traitor,  if  he  commits  the  crime,  but  it  must  be  a  crime  of 
which  he  should  be  proveably  attaint,  by  overt  acts.  And  in  order 
that  there  be  an  opportunity  of  investigation  and  defence,  the  features 
of  the  overt  acts  should  be  stated  of  public  record  in  the  very  body  of 
the  indictment.  Justly  do  I  hear  it  observed,  that  there  cannot  be 
devised  a  fairer  mode  of  accusation  and  ti-ial,  than  this  is.  Gentlemen, 
I  have  stated  to  you,  how  the  foundation  of  it  stands  in  both  countries, 
touching  the  mode  of  accusation  and  trial.  I  have  to  add  to  you,  that 
in  Gi'eat  Britain  it  has  been  found  necessary  still  further  to  increase 
the  sanction  of  the  jury,  and  the  safety  of  the  prisoner,  by  an  express 
statute  in  King  William's  time.  By  that  law  it  is  now  settled  in  that 
great  country,  that  no  man  shall  be  indicted  or  convicted,  except 
upon  the  evidence  of  two  witnesses,  and  it  describes  what  sort  of 
evidence  that  shall  be,  either  two  witnesses  swearing  directly  to  the 
same  overt  act  laid  in  the  indictment ;  or  two  witnesses,  one  swearing 
to  one  overt  act,  and  the  other  to  another  overt  act  of  the  same  species 
of  treason.  So  that  in  that  country,  no  man  can  be  found  guilty, 
except  upon  the  evidence  of  two  distinct  credible  witnesses,  credible 
in  their  testimony,  distinct  in  their  persons,  and  concurring  in  the 
evidence  of  acts,  of  one  and  the  same  class  of  treason  ;  for  it  must  be 
to  the  same  identical  treason,  sworn  to  by  both  witnesses  ;  or  one 
witness  deposing  to  one  act  of  treason,  and  the  other  to  another  act  of 


248  TRIAL  OF 

the  same  class  of  treason  ;  that  is  the  settled  law  of  the  neighbouring 
kingdom,  and  I  state  it  to  you  emphatically  to  be  the  settled  law ; 
because  far  am  I  from  thinking,  that  we  have  not  the  blessing  of 
living  under  the  same  sanction  of  law,  far  am  I  from  imagining  that 
the  breath  which  cannot  even  taint  the  character  of  a  man  in  England, 
shall  here  blow  him  from  the  earth — that  the  proof,  which  in  England 
would  not  wound  the  man,  shall  here  deprive  him  of  his  life — that 
though  the  people  in  England  would  laugh  at  the  accusation,  yet  here 
it  shall  cause  the  accused  to  perish  under  it.  Sure  I  am  that  in  a 
country  where  so  few  instances  of  a  foul  accusation  of  this  sort  have 
occurred,  the  judges  of  the  court  will  need  little  argument  to  give 
effect  to  everything  urged  to  shew,  that  the  law  is  the  same  in  Ireland 
as  in  England. 

Lord  Ci-ONMEL. — Do  you  mean  to  argue  that  the  statute  of  William 
is  in  force  in  Ireland  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — No,  my  lord ;  not  that  the  statute  of  William  is  in 
force — but  I  mean  to  argue,  that  the  necessity  of  two  witnesses  in  the 
case  of  treason  is  as  strong  here  as  in  England.  It  is  the  opinion  of 
Lord  Coke,  founded  upon  a  number  of  authorities  ;  the  opinion  of 
Lord  Coke,  referring  to  a  judicial  continnation  of  what  he  says  ;  the 
opinion  of  Lord  Coke  controverted,  if  it  can  be  said  to  be  conti'overted 
by  the  modest  and  diffident  dissent  of  Sir  Michael  Foster.  It  is  laid 
down  by  Lord  Coke,  that  he  conceives  it  to  be  the  established  law, 
that  two  witnesses  are  necessary  to  convict :  3  Inst.  26.  "  It  seemeth 
that  by  the  ancient  common  law,  one  accuser  or  witness  was  not 
sufficient  to  convict  any  person  of  high  treason — and  that  two  wit- 
nesses be  required,  appeareth  by  our  books,  and  I  remember  no 
authority  in  our  books  to  the  contrary."  I  know  of  no  judicial  deter- 
mination in  our  books  to  the  contrary  of  what  Lord  Coke  here  states : 
the  common  law  is  grounded  upon  the  principles  of  reason.  I  con- 
sider the  statutes  of  Edw.  VI.,  and  William  III.,  as  statutes  which  had 
become  necessary  from  the  abuses  occasioned  by  a  departure  from  the 
common  law.  After  the  statute  of  Edw.  VI.,  expressly  declaring  the 
necessity  of  two  witnesses,  the  courts  had  fallen  into,  perhaps  a  well 
intcntioned  departure  from  the  meaning  of  the  statute  of  Edw.  VI.,  so 
far  that  the  place  of  two  witnesses  was  supplied  in  evidence  by  any 
thing  that  the  court  thought  a  matei'ial  additional  circumstance  in  the 
case  ;  and  to  the  time  of  William  III.,  such  a  departure  had  prevailed, 
and  this  was  thought  sufficient  to  discharge  every  thing  respecting 
the  obligations  of  the  statute.  It  became  necessary  therefore  to  enact, 
and  by  that  enaction  to  do  away  the  abuse  of  the  principle  of  the 
common  law,  by  expressly  declaring  that  no  man  should  be  indicted 
or  convicted  except  by  two  witnesses  to  one  overt  act,  or  one  witness 
to  one  act,  and  a  second  to  another  act  of  high  treason  of  the  same 
species.  And  there  seems  to  rae  to  be  a  sound  distinction  between 
the  case  of  high  treason,  and  of  any  other  crime.  It  is  the  only 
crime  which  every  subject  is  sworn  against  committing :  It  is  the 
only  crime  which  any  subject  is  sworn  to  abstain  from.  In  every 
other  case  the  subject  is  left  to  the  fear  of  punishment  which  he  may 
feel,  or  to  the  dictates  of  his  conscience  to  guard  himself  against 
transgressing  the  law  ;  but  treason  is  a  breach  of  his  oath  of  allegiance, 
and  is  so  lar  like  the  case  of  perjury  :  and  therefore  in   the  case  of 


THE    REV.    WILLIAM    JACKSON.  249 

treason,  no  luan  should  be  convieted  by  the  testimony  of  a  single 
witness,  because  it  amounts  to  no  more  than  oath  against  oath  :  so 
that  it  is  only  reasonable  there  should  be  another  to  turn  the  scale  ; 
and  therefore  it  is  that  I  conceive  Lord  Coke  well  warranted  in  lay- 
ing down  this  rule,  a  rule  deduced  from  general  justice,  and  even 
from  the  law  of  God  himself.  Gentlemen,  what  I  am  now  stating,  I 
offer  to  the  court  as  matter  of  law. 

But  what  wei-e  these  witnesses  ?  Witnesses  in  all  cases  beyond 
exception,  in  their  personal  circumstances,  and  in  their  personal 
credit.  Therefore  it  is  the  law,  that  no  man  shall  be  found  guilty  of 
any  offence  that  is  not  legally  proved  upon  him  by  the  sworn  testi- 
mony of  credible  witnesses.  Gentlemen,  I  have  submitted  my  humble 
ideas  of  the  law — I  have  stated  the  charge  which  the  prisoner  was 
called  upon  to  answer :  Let  me  now  state  the  overt  acts,  which  in 
this  particular  case  are  necessary  to  be  proved.  The  first  is,  that  the 
prisoner  did  traitorously  come  to,  and  land  in  L*eland,  to  procure 
information  concerning  the  subjects  of  L'eland,  and  to  send  that 
information  to  the  persons  exercising  the  government  in  France,  to 
aid  them  in  cariying  on  the  war  against  the  King.  I  do  not  recollect 
that  Cockayne  said  one  single  word  of  the  prisoner's  coming  here  for 
such  purpose.  The  second  overt  act  is,  that  the  prisoner  did  traitor- 
ously intend  to  raise  and  levy  war,  and  incite  persons  to  invade 
L-eland  with  arms  and  men  ;  tlaat  he  did  incite  Theobald  Wolfe  Tone 
to  go  beyond  seas  to  incite  France  to  invade  this  Kingdom ;  that  he 
did  endeavour  to  procure  persons  to  go  to  France ;  and  that  he  agreed 
with  other  persons,  that  they  should  be  sent  to  France  for  the  same 
purpose.  Having  stated  these  overt  acts  which  are  laid  in  the  indict- 
ment, you  will  be  pleased  to  recollect  the  evidence  given  by  Cockayne. 
Cockayne  did  not  say  that  the  prisoner  came  over  here  for  any  such 
purpose  as  the  overt  act  attributes  to  him ;  then,  as  to  the  overt  act, 
of  endeavouring  to  procure  persons  to  go  to  France  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  information  to  the  enemy  ;  the  witness  said  he  met  Mr. 
M'Nally ;  he  had  known  him  in  England  ;  Jackson  was  a  clergyman ; 
he  had  known  him  also.  Cockayne  had  professional  business  with 
Mr.  M'Nally.  Mr.  M'Nally  paid  them  a  courtesy  which  any  decent 
person  would  have  been  entitled  to.  They  dined  at  his  house,  and 
met  three  or  four  persons  there ;  they  talked  of  the  politics  of  Ireland ; 
of  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  people  ;  but  not  a  syllable  of  what  is 
stated  in  the  indictment ;  not  one  word  of  any  conspiracy ;  Cockayne 
did  not  pretend  to  be  able  to  give  any  account  of  any  specific  conver- 
sation ;  he  went  to  Newgate  ;  Rowan  was  then  in  confinement ;  he 
sometimes  went  by  himself;  sometimes  met  Tone,  sometimes  Jackson; 
he  gave  you  an  account  of  encouragement ;  what  was  it  ?  Was  there 
any  thing  to  support  this  indictment  ?  Let  me  remind  you  that  you 
are  to  found  your  verdict  on  what  the  witness  says  and  you  believe, 
and  not  on  what  learned  counsel  may  be  instructed  to  state.  Then 
what  does  the  witness  say  ?  He  admits  that  he  did  not  hear  all  the 
conversation.  The  crying  injustice  must  strike  you,  of  making  a 
man  answerable  for  a  part  of  a  conversation,  where  the  witness  did 
not  hear  it  all;  but  take  it  as  he  has  stated  it,  unqualified  and  uncon- 
strued :  how  high  was  he  wrought  up  by  it  ?  He  heard  talk  of 
somebody  to  go  to  France ;  he  was  to  carry  papers ;  he  heard  an 


250  TRIAL  OF 

expression  of  instructions  to  the  French ;  what  French  ?  What 
instructions  ?  It  might  be  to  French  manufacturers  ;  it  might  be  to 
French  traitors  ;  it  might  be  to  the  French  King ;  it  might  be  to  the 
French  Convention.  Do  I  mean  to  say  that  there  was  nothing  by 
which  a  credulous  or  reasonable  man  might  not  have  his  suspicion 
raised,  or  that  there  was  nothing  in  three  or  four  men  huddling  them- 
selves together  in  Newgate  and  talking  of  an  invasion  ?  No,  but  my 
reasoning  is  this — that  your  verdict  is  to  be  founded  on  evidence  of 
positive  guilt  established  at  the  hazard  of  the  personal  punishment  of 
the  witness,  you  are  not  to  pick  up  the  conjectures  either  of  his 
malignity  or  credulity.  I  say  that  this  man  stands  in  defiance  of  your 
verdict,  because  it  will  be  effected  by  nothing  but  that  irresistable 
evidence  on  which  alone  it  ought  to  be  founded.  But  what  was  the 
fact  which  Tone  was  to  do  or  any  other  person  ?  It  was  an  illegal 
one.  By  a  late  act,  an  English  subject  going  to  France  is  liable  to 
six  months  imprisonment.  By  a  clause  in  the  same  statute  the  crime 
of  soliciting  a  person  to  go  is  also  punishable.  The  encouraging  any 
person  to  go  to  that  country  was  therefore  exposing  him  to  danger, 
but  whether  it  was  a  motive  of  trade,  or  smuggling,  or  idle  adventure 
is  not  the  question  for  you.  It  is  whether  the  intention  was  to 
convey  an  incitement  to  the  French  to  make  a  descent  on  this  king- 
dom, and  endeavour  to  subvert  the  constitution  of  it.  You  have  a 
simple  question  before  you — has  even  the  prosecutor  sworn  that  he 
endeavoured  to  do  so?  I  think  not.  The  next  overt  act  charged  is, 
that  he  did  compose  and  Avrite  a  letter  in  order  to  be  sent  to  William 
Stone,  in  which  he  traitorously  desired  Stone  to  disclose  to  certain 
persons  in  France  the  scheme  and  intention  of  Jackson,  to  send  a 
person  to  inform  them  of  the  state  of  Ireland,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  support  and  effect  to  an  hostile  invasion  of  this  country.  You 
have  heard  these  letters  read.  You  must  of  necessity  look  on  them 
in  one  or  two  important  and  distinct  points  of  view.  The  first 
perhaps  that  will  naturally  strike  you  is,  what  are  these  letters  ?  Do 
they  sustain  the  allegations  of  the  overt  act?  Are  they  letters 
requiring  Stone  to  inform  the  Convention,  of  this  country  being  in 
such  a  state  as  to  encourage  an  invasion  ?  Does  that  paper  support 
this  allegation?  God  help  us!  gentlemen  of  the  jury!  I  know  not 
in  what  state  the  property  or  life  of  any  man  will  be  if  they  are 
always  to  be  at  the  mercy,  and  to  depend  on  the  possibility  of  his 
explaining  either  the  real  or  pretended  circumstances  on  which  he 
corresponds  with  persons  abroad.  The  letters  are  written  apparently 
upon  mercantile  subjects — he  talks  of  manufactures,  of  a  firm,  of 
prices  changed,  of  different  families,  of  differences  among  them,  of 
overtures  to  be  accepted  of,  of  disputes  likely  to  be  settled  by  means 
of  common  mediation:  what  is  the  evidence  on  which  you  can  be 
supported  in  saying  that  manufactures  mean  treason — that  Nicholas 
means  the  war  minister  of  France — the  sister-in-law  Ireland — that 
"  the  firm  has  been  changed,"  means  Danton  has  been  gullotined,  but 
that  makes  no  alteration  in  the  state  of  the  house,  meaning  the 
circumstances  of  the  revolution — that  the  change  of  prices  and 
manufactures  means  any  thing  else  necessary  to  give  consistency  to 
the  charge  of  treason.  Give  me  leave  to  say  that  this  ludicrous  and 
barbarous  consequence  would  follow  from  a  rule  of  this  sort,  the 


THE    REV.    WILLIAM    JACKSON.  251 

idlest  letter  might  be  strained  to  any  purpose.  The  simplicity  of  our 
law  is,  that  a  man's  guilt  should  be  proved  by  the  evidence  of  wit- 
nesses on  their  oaths,  which  shall  not  be  supplied  by  fancy,  nor 
elicited  by  the  ingenuity  of  any  person  making  suggestions  to  the 
wretched  credulity  of  a  jury  that  should  be  weak  enough  to  adopt 
them.  I  come  now  to  this.  A  letter  produced  imports  on  the  face 
of  it  to  be  a  letter  of  business,  concerning  manufactures — another 
concerning  family  differences.  In  which  way  are  they  to  be  under- 
stood ?  I  say  with  confidence,  better  it  should  be  to  let  twenty  men, 
that  might  have  a  criminal  purpose  in  writing  letters  of  this  kind, 
escape,  than  fall  into  the  dreadful  alternative  of  making  one  man  a 
victim  to  a  charge  of  this  kind  not  supported  by  such  proof  as  could 
bring  conviction  on  the  mind  of  a  rational  jury. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  state  to  you  minutely,  the  rest  of 
these  allegations  of  the  overt  acts.  The  charge  against  the  prisoner 
is  supported,  and  this  is  perhaps  the  clearest  way  of  calling  your 
attention  to  the  evidence,  either  by  the  positive  evidence  of  Cockayne 
as  to  these  facts,  or  by  the  written  evidence  which  stands  also  on  his 
testimony  alone.  Touching  actual  conspiracy  he  said  nothing :  some- 
body was  to  go  to  France — he  knew  not  for  what — he  had  an  idea 
on  his  mind  for  what  it  was — but  never  from  any  communication  with 
Jackson.  There  have  been  other  letters  read  in  evidence.  Two  of 
them  contained  duplicates  of  a  sort  of  representation  of  the  supposed 
state  of  Ireland.  Cockayne  says  that  he  got  the  packet  from  Jackson, 
that  he  himself  wrote  the  directions  ;  one,  addressed  to  Amsterdam, 
the  other  to  Hamburgh.  They  were  read,  and  they  contain  asssertions, 
whether  true  or  false  I  do  not  think  material,  of  the  state  of  this 
country.  If  material  at  all,  material  only  in  their  falsehood.  The 
public  are  satisfied  that  these  allegations  are  false.  It  is  known  to 
every  man  in  this  country,  and  must  be  known  with  great  satisfaction 
by  every  honest  man,  that  it  is  not  in  that  state  that  could  induce  any 
but  the  most  adventurous  and  wicked  folly  to  try  an  experiment  upon 
it.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  comment  on  the  opinions  contained  in 
that  paper ;  there  is  a  matter  more  material,  and  calling  more  loudly 
for  your  attention.  It  is  stated  to  be  written  with  the  purpose  of 
inviting  the  persons  governiBg  in  France  to  try  a  descent  upon  Ii-eland. 
This  paper  is  evidence  to  support  that  charge  ;  you  have  heard  it 
read.  On  what  public  subject  have  you  ever  heard  six  men  speak 
and  all  to  agree?  Might  not  a  stranger,  in  a  fit  of  despondency 
imagine  that  an  invasion  might  have  a  fatal  effect  on  this  country  ? 
It  is  not  impossible  but  if  ten  men  were  to  make  a  landing,  some 
mischief  might  happen.  Then  again,  what  do  I  mean  to  argue  ?  Is 
it  that  this  letter  bears  no  marks  of  the  design  imputed  to  it  ?  No 
such  thing.  It  is  a  letter  that  the  most  innocent  man  might  write, 
but  it  is  also  such  a  one  as  a  guilty  man  might  write,  but  unless  there 
was  clear  evidence  of  his  guilt,  he  would  be  entitled  to  your  verdict 
of  acquittal.  Though  it  was  not  expressly  avowed,  yet  I  cannot  help 
thinking  that  it  was  meant  to  lay  some  little  emphasis  on  certain 
names  which  I  have  met  with  in  the  newspapers — I  am  sure  I  have 
met  the  name  of  Laignelot  in  the  debates  of  the  Convention — I  have 
met  the  name  of  Home  Tooke  and  Stone  in  the  English  papers.  I 
have  read  that  Home  Tooke  was  tried  for  high  treason  and  acquitted. 


252  TRIAL,  OP 

That  Stone  made  liis  escape  into  Switzerland.  I  believe  it  is  said 
that  there  is  a  person  of  that  name  in  confinement  in  England  at 
present.  But  let  me  tell  you,  you  are  not  to  draw  any  inferences  from 
circumstances  of  this  kind  against  the  prisoner,  let  me  tell  you  it  is 
the  guilt  of  the  man  and  not  the  sound  of  names  by  which  his  fate  is 
to  be  decided. 

Other  papers  have  been  read.  One  seems  to  contain  some  form 
of  addresses.  A  letter  said  to  come  fi'om  Stone  has  been  read  to 
you.  The  letter  to  Beresford,  said  to  be  written  by  Jackson, 
has  also  been  read  to  you.  I  have  stated  the  material  parts  of 
the  evidence.  I  have  endeavoured  to  submit  my  poor  idea  of 
the  rule  by  which  you  ought  to  be  guided.  I  see  only  one  remain- 
ing topic  to  trouble  you  upon ;  it  appears  to  me  to  be  a  topic 
of  the  utmost  importance.  And,  gentlemen,  it  is  this.  Who  is  the 
man  that  has  been  examined  to  support  this  charge  ?  One  witness.  I 
beseech  you  to  have  that  engraven  on  your  minds.  The  charge  in 
all  its  parts  stands  only  on  the  evidence  of  Cockayne  ;  there  is  no 
other  evidence  of  any  conversation,  there  is  not  a  material  letter 
read  in  this  case  that  does  not  rest  upon  Cockayne's  evidence,  and 
that  I  am  warranted  in  this  assertion  you  will  see  to  a  demonstration 
when  I  remind  the  Court  that  he  was  the  only  witness  as  I  recollect 
called  to  prove  the  hand-writing  of  Jackson.  On  his  testimony 
alone  must  depend  the  fact  of  their  being  his  hand- writing,  of  the 
inuendoes  imputed  to  them  or  the  purpose  with  which  they  were 
sent. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  scarcely  justified  in  having  trespassed  so  long  on 
your  patience.     It  is  a  narrow  case.     It  is  a  case  of  a  man  charged 
with  the  highest  and  most  penal  offence  known  by  our  law,   and 
charged  by  one  witness  only.     And  let  me  ask,  who  that  witness  is? 
A  man  stating  that  he  comes  from  another  country,  armed  with  a 
pardon  for  treasons  committed  in  Ii'eland,  but  not  in  England  Avhence 
he  comes.     What !  were  you  never  on  a  jury  befoi-e  ?     Did  you  ever 
hear  of  a  man  forfeiting  his  life  on  the  unsupported  evidence  of  a 
single  witness,  and  he  an  accomplice  by  his  own  confession  ?    What ! 
his  character  made  the  subject  of  testimony  and  support !  take  his 
own  vile  evidence  for  his  character.     He  was  the  foul  traitor  of  his 
own  client.    What  do  you  think  now  of  his  character  ?     He  was  a  spy 
upon  his  fi'iend.     He  was  the  man  that  yielded  to  the  tie  of  three 
oaths  of  allegiance,  to  watch  the  steps  of  his  client  for  the  bribe  of 
government,  with  a  pardon  for  the  treasons  he  might  commit ;  and  he 
had  impressed  on  his  mind  the  conviction  that  he  was  liable  to  be 
executed  as  a  ti-aitor.     Was  he  aware  of  his  crime  ?     His  pardon 
speaks  it.     Was  he  aware  of  the  turpitude  of  his  character, — he  came 
with  the  cure — he  brought  his  witness  in  his  pocket.     To  what  ?     To 
do  away  an  offence  which  he  did  not  venture  to  deny ;  that  he  had 
incautiously  sworn  that  which  was  false  in  fact,  though  the  jury  did 
not  choose  to  give  it  the  name  of  wilful  and  corrupt  perjury.     Gra- 
cious God !    Is  it  then  on  the  evidence  of  a  man  of  this  kind,  with  his 
pardon  in  liis  pocket,  and  his  bribe — not  yet  in  his  pocket — that  you 
can  venture  to  convict  the  prisoner.     He  was  to  be  taken  care  of. 
How  so  ?     Jackson  owed  him  a  debt^ — "  I  was  to  do  the  honourable 
business  of  a  spy  and  informer,  and  to  be  paid  for  it  in  the  common 


THE  KEV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  253 

way — it  was  common  acreable  work — treason  and  conspiracy — I  was 
to  be  paid  for  it  by  the  sheet."     Do  you  find  men  doing  these  things 
in  common  life  ?     I  have  now  stated  the  circumstances  by  which,  in 
my  opinion,  the  credit  of  Cockayne  ought  to  be  reduced  to  notliing  in 
your  eyes.     But  I  do  not  rest  here.      Papers  were  found  in  the 
chamber  of  Mr.  Jackson — the  door  was  open,  and  by  the  bye,  that 
carelessness  was  not  evidence  of  any  conscious  guilt — the  papers  were 
■  seized — that  there  were  some  belonging  to  Jackson  is  clear,  because 
he  expressed  an  anxiety  about  some  that  are  confessed  not  to  have 
any  relation  to  the  subject  of  this  day's  trial.     I  asked  Cockayne  if  he 
had  any  papers  in  Jackson's  room  the  night  before  he  was  arrested — 
he  said  not.     I  asked  him  if  he  had  told  any  person  that  he  had — he 
said  not.     Gentlemen,  the  only  witness  I  shall  call,  will  be  one  to 
shew  you  that  he  has  in  that  sworn  falsely.     And  let  me  here  make 
one  observation  to  you,  the  strength  and  good  sense  of  which  has 
been  repeated  an  hundred  times,  and  therefore  rests  on  better  authority 
than  mine.     Where  a  witness  swears  glibly  to  a  number  of  circum- 
stances, where  it  is  impossible  to  produce  contradictory  proof,  and  is 
found  to  fail  in  one,  it  shall  overthrow  all  the  others.     And  see  how 
strongly  the  observation  applies  here — he  swore  to  a  conversation 
with  Jackson  as  to  what  he  said  and  did,  well  knowing  that  Jackson 
could  not  be  a  witness  to  disprove  that,  unless  the  good  sense  of  the 
jury  should  save  his  life,  and  enable  him  to  become  in  his  turn  a  pro- 
secutor for  the  perjury.     If  on  a  point  of  this  kind  this  man  should 
be  found  to  have  forsworn  himself,  it  cannot  occasion  any  other  senti- 
ment   but  this,   that   if  you   have  felt  yourselves   disposed  to  give 
anything  like  credit  to  his  evidence  where  he  has  sworn  to  facts  which 
he  must  have  known,  it  is  the  key-stone  of  the  arch  in  his  testimony, 
and  if  you  can  pluck  it  from  its  place,  the  remainder  of  the  pile  will 
fall  in  ruins  about  his  head.     I  will  produce  that  witness — but  before 
I  sit  down,   permit  me,  gentlemen  of  the  jmy,  to  remind  you,  that  if 
every  word  which  Cockayne  has  here  sworn  were  sworn  in  West- 
minster-Hall, the  judges  would  immediately  have  said — there  is  not 
anything  for  the  jury  to  decide  upon  ;  the  evidence  of  incitement  rests 
on  him  alone,  there  is  no  second  witness ;  so  does  the  transaction  of 
the  letters  ;  for  De  Joncourt's  testimony  could  not  have  satisfied  the 
statute  ;  it  was  not  evidence  to  the  same  overt  act  as  affecting  Jackson 
personally,  nor  was  it  evidence  of  any  distinct  overt  act,  it  was  merely 
that  species  of  evidence,  the  abuse  of  which  had  been  the  cause  of 
introducing  the  statute  act  of  William  ;  a  mere  collateral  concomitant 
evidence.     The  overt  act  was  writing  and  putting  into  the  post-office, 
that  was  sworn  to  by  Cockayne,  and  if  he  deserved  credit,  would  go 
so  far  as  to  prove  the  fact  by  one  witness.     See  what  the  idea  of  the 
statute  is  ;    it  is  that  it  must  be  an  overt  act  brought  home  to  the 
prisoner  by  each   of  the  two  witnesses  swearing  to  it.     If  De  Jon- 
court's evidence  stood  single,  it  could  not  have  brought  anything  home 
to  Jackson,     Cockayne  swore  the  superscription  was  his  writing  ;  he 
put  the  letters  into  the  office.     De  Joncourt  said  nothing  but  that  he 
found  in  the  office  a  letter  which  he  produced,  and  which  Cockayne 
said  was  the  one  he  had  put  into  it.     This  observation  appears   to 
collect  additional  strength  from  this  circumstance.     Why  did  they 
not  produce  Tone  ?     It  is  said  they  could  not.     I  say  they  could.     It 


254  TRIAL  OF 

was  as  easy  to  pardon  liim  as  to  pardon  Cockayne.  But  whether  he 
was  guilty  or  not  is  no  objection.  8hall  it  be  said  that  the  argument 
turns  about  and  affects  Jackson  as  much  as  it  does  the  prosecutor  ?  I 
think  certainly  not.  Jackson,  I  believe  it  has  appeared  in  the  course 
of  the  evidence,  and  is  matter  of  judicial  knowledge  to  the  court,  has 
lain  in  prison  for  twelve  months  past,  from  the  moment  of  his  arrest 
to  the  moment  of  his  trial.  If  he  is  conscious  that  the  charge  is  false, 
it  is  impossible  for  him  to  prove  that  falsehood ;  he  was  so  circum- 
stanced as  that  he  could  not  procure  the  attendance  of  witnesses  ;  a 
stranger  in  the  country,  he  could  not  tell  whether  some  of  the  persons 
named  were  in  existence  or  not.  I  have  before  apologized  to  you  for 
trespassing  upon  your  patience,  and  I  have  again  trespassed — let  me 
not  repeat  it.  I  shall  only  take  the  liberty  of  reminding  you,  that 
if  you  have  any  doubt,  in  a  criminal  case  doubt  should  be  acquittal, 
that  you  are  trying  a  case  which  if  tried  in  England  would  preclude 
the  jury  from  the  possibility  of  finding  a  verdict  of  condemnation.  It 
is  for  you  to  put  it  into  the  power  of  mankind  to  say,  that  that  which 
should  pass  harmlessly  over  the  head  of  a  man  in  Great  Britain  shall 
blast  him  here  ; — whether  life  is  more  valuable  in  that  country  than 
in  this,  or  whether  a  verdict  may  more  easily  be  obtained  here  in  a 
case  tending  to  establish  pains  and  penalties  of  this  severe  nature. 

[William  Humphrys  was  then  called  several  times  for  the  prisoner, 
but  did  not  attend.] 

Mr.  PoNSONBY. — Mr.  Curran  has  gone  so  fully  into  the  case  as  to 
leave  very  little  for  me  to  say  upon  the  subject.  Gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  the  Court  will,  I  am  sure,  tell  you  that  the  laws  of  England  and 
Ireland  know  no  single  authority  so  great  as  that  of  Sir  Edward  Coke. 
I  am  not  afraid  to  be  contradicted,  when  I  say,  that  in  point  of 
learning,  practice,  experience  and  reputation,  as  a  lawyer,  no  man  has 
arisen  in  these  countries  whose  authority  holds  an  equal  place  with 
his ;  and  he  lays  down  the  common  law  to  be,  that  no  man  can  be 
convicted  of  high  treason  but  on  the  evidence  of  two  witnesses.  I  do 
freely  admit  that  later  lawyers  have  held  his  doctinne  to  be  erroneous, 
and  that  in  truth  the  common  law  is,  that  on  the  evidence  of  a  single 
witness,  a  man  may  be  convicted  of  high  treason.  I  admit  that  Sir 
Michael  Foster  and  Serjeant  Hawkins  say  so.  I  admit  Foster  an 
authority,  but  I  do  not  admit  Hawkins  an  authority.  But  I  do  not 
admit  them  or  any  other  man  so  great  an  authority  as  Lord  Coke — 
and  he  expressly  lays  it  down,  that  on  the  evidence  of  one  man  only 
shall  no  person  be  convicted  of  high  treason.  I  am  ready  to  read  the 
words  of  Foster :  he  says,  page  233,  Ir.  Ed.  "  It  hath  been  generally 
agreed  and  I  think  upon  just  grounds  (though  Lord  Coke  hath 
advanced  a  contrary  doctrine),  that  at  common  law  one  witness  was 
sufiicient  in  the  case  of  treason,  as  well  as  in  every  other  capital  case." 
No  man  will  deny  that  Coke  stands  higher  than  any  other  lawyer, 
and  no  man  will  deny  that  that  difference  subsisted  between  him  and 
those  men.  But  whatsoever  may  be  the  opinion  of  Foster,  who  wrote 
in  the  reign  of  Geo.  11.  he  was  giving  his  opinion  on  a  case  pei'fectly 
out  of  the  way  at  that  time — on  a  case  on  which  it  was  totally  unne- 
cessary for  him  to  give  an  opinion — on  a  case  that  had  not  nor  could 
not  have  been  drawn  into  controversy  for  eighty  years  before ;  be- 
cause that  early  in  the  reign  of  King  William  tliere  passed  an  act  for 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  255 

the  regulation  of  trials  in  high  treason.     This  was  an  act  declaratory 
of  the  common  law  as  was  the  St.  Ed.  III. ;  for  no  lawyer  will  say, 
that  the  statute  of  treasons,  the  best  statute  in  our  statute  books  is 
anything  else  than  declaratory  of  the  common  law  of  England.     Lord 
Coke  says  expressly  that  one  witness  was  not  sufficient,  others  have 
differed  from  him  ;  but  the  stat.  W.  III.  put  the  question  out  of  dis- 
pute for  the  future,  because  it  enacts  that  no  man  be  convicted  of  high 
treason,  but  on  the  oaths  of  two  credible  witnesses.     Whatever  might 
have  been  the  opinion  of  lawyers  before,  it  is  clear  from  the  time  of 
passing  that  statute,  the  question  was  put  out  of  doubt,  because  two 
witnesses  are  now  expressly  required.     Therefore,  when  Foster  wrote 
that  book,  he  was  giving  an  opinion  more  as  an  antiquarian  than  a 
lawyer,  because  he  was  examining  a  subject  which  could  not  come  into 
discussion  so  long  as  the  statute  of  William  III.  remained.     If  the 
legislature  had  not  conceived  Lord  Coke  right  in  his  idea  of  the  common 
law,  why  should  they  have  thought  it  necessary  to  pass  that  act  ? 
either  they  held  that  no  man  could  be  convicted  without  the  testimony 
of  two  witnesses,  or  they  thought  proper  to  enact  it  for  the  first  time. 
They  could  have  but  this   reason  for  it,  that  if  the  law  was  not  so,  it 
ought  to  be  so.     Cockayne  is  the  only  witness  that  has  appeared  to  you 
in  this  case,  for  as  to  the  others  they  have  been  merely  examined  to  the 
finding  of  papei's  here,  delivering  letters  there,  or  something  of  that 
sort.     None  of  them  were  examined  to  prove  any  criminal  charge 
whatever  against  Jackson.     The  written  letters  are  proved  only  by 
Cockayne,  the  conversations  are  proved  only  by  Cockayne,  in  short  the 
alleged  treason  in  this  case  is  proved  only  by  Cockayne.     And,  gentle- 
men of  the  jury,  it  demands  serious   consideration  on   your    part, 
whether,  even  supposing  the  law  of  Ireland  to  be  such  as  that  a  may  be 
convicted  on  the  evidence  of  a  single  witness,  Cockayne  be  such  a  one 
as  will  justify  you  in  finding  a  verdict  of  conviction  on  his  testimony. 
By  the  law  of  England  there  mvist  be  either  two  witnesses  to  the  same 
overt  act,  or  one  of  them  to  one,  and  another  to  another  overt  act  of 
the  same  treason  ;  but  if  there  be  two  distinct  treasons  of  divers  kinds 
in  one  bill  of  indictment,  one  witness  to  one,  and  another  to  another 
of  the  said  ti'easons  would  not  be  sufficient  within  the  act.     How  is 
the  treason  alleged  here  ?     There  are  two  species  chai'ged,  compassing 
the  king's  death  and  adhering  to  his  enemies.     Do  they  produce  two 
witnesses  to  any  one  overt  act,  as  the  law  of  England  requii-es  ?     No. 
But  they  allege  two  distinct  treasons,  and  produce  but  one  witness  to 
prove  both  ;  in  England  you  must  have  two  witnesses  to  one  species 
of  treason,  here  it  seems,  there  needs  but  one  witness  to  two  species 
of  treason.     Does  Cockayne  appear  to  you  in  such  a  light  as  to  justify 
you  in  your  consciences  to  take  away  a  man's  life  on  the  credit  of  his 
evidence  ?     See  the  account  he  gives  of  himself,  he  said  he  thought 
Jackson  had  some  intention  of  sending  to  the  enemy  some  articles 
that  were  prohibited,  and  he   came  here  to  prevent   him.     Was  it 
necessary  to  prevent  Jackson  from  sending  goods  from  Ireland,  that 
he  should  be  allowed  to  come  hither,  instead  of  being  stopt  in  Eng- 
land ?     Was  thei-e   no  other  way  of  doing  that  but  by  his   coming 
with  him  to  Ireland  ?     Because,  if  he  said  truly,  he  thought  that  the 
best  way  to  prevent  Jackson's  sending  goods  from  hence,  was  to  let 
him  come  hither.     But  it  is  plain  from  his  own  sweai'ing  that  that 


256 


TRIAL   OF 


could  not  be  his  object.  It  must  have  been  to  forward  him  in  the 
execution  of  his  criminal  intentions  in  order  to  betray  him,  and  then 
to  be  rewarded  for  his  treachery.  I  know  not  in  what  light  to  look 
on  Cockayne.  Shall  I  call  him  what  the  law  calls  an  approver,  was 
he  in  his  secrets  ?  Did  he  join  him  ?  Did  he  afterwards  betray  him  ? 
If  so,  the  old  maxim  of  our  law  was  that  no  man  for  any  crime  could 
be  convicted  on  the  evidence  of  such  a  person.  I  allow  that  latter 
practice  has  departed  from  that  rule,  and  that  the  evidence  of  an  ap- 
prover which  was  formerly  driven  from  the  bar  is  now  received. 
But  of  all  the  evidence  known  it  is  not  only  the  most  odious  but  the 
weakest,  and  no  judge  ever  tries  such  a  case,  who  does  not  tell  the 
jury  so.  Now,  in  what  light  does  Cockayne  stand  ?  if  he  is  to  be 
believed,  he  must  have  known  Jackson's  projects  :  in  intention  he 
must  have  been  as  criminal  as  Jackson — and  this  for  the  purpose  of 
betraying  his  confidence  and  being  rewarded  for  it ;  for  this  purpose 
he  becomes  an  approver  against  the  man  with  Avhom  he  had  been 
engaged — and  this  man  was  the  only  witness.  If  there  were  criminal 
plots  existing,  why  not  examine  others  ?  Wliy  not  examine  Tone,  or 
Lewins  ?  it  was  as  easy  to  pardon  them  as  Cockayne  :  if  their  story 
was  true,  why  did  they  rest  the  credit  of  it  on  Cockayne,  when  they 
might  have  had  other  witnesses  ? — and  then,  they  might  have  had, 
not  only  more,  but  better  evidence — then  they  might  have  had  the 
evidence  of  men,  though  equally  criminal,  yet  not  equally  disgrace- 
ful— of  men  who  had  not  upon  their  oaths,  and  before  the  eyes  of  the 
jury,  been  base  enough  to  betray  their  fellow  traitor  ;  they  might 
have  had  evidence  on  which  the  jury  might  have  rested  :  a  pardon 
would  have  made  them  competent — their  conduct  would  have  cleared 
them  from  the  business — can  you  think  that  they  would  have  brought 
this  case  forward,  supported  by  such  a  witness  as  Cockayne  alone,  if 
they  could  have  ventured  to  produce  the  rest ;  if  their  story  was  true, 
they  would  either  have  prosecuted  the  rest  for  treason,  or  have  par- 
doned them  in  order  to  produce  them  here. 

Cockayne  tells  you  that  when  the  lettei's  were  put  into  the  post- 
ofRce,  they  were  not  indeed  intended  to  be  sent  abroad  ;  they  were 
never  to  go  out  of  the  country,  for  he  himself  knew  they  Avould  be 
stopt ;  yet  the  indictment  avers  that  they  wei'e  intended  to  be  sent 
out  of  the  country,  and  were  delivered  at  the  post-office  for  that 
purpose. 

It  is  difficult  indeed  to  lay  much  stress  on  the  evidence  of  Cockayne 
— his  memory  was  singularly  bad — he  was  present  at  many  meetings 
— at  various  conversations — yet,  he  could  remember  nothing — he 
understood,  he  thought,  he  believed  ;  but  he  could  not  swear.  What 
was  the  fact  ?  Was  it  that  he  was  present  at  these  meetings,  these 
conversations,  and  yet  did  not  remember  them  ?  No,  the  object  of 
this  hesitation,  this  pretended  delicacy,  was,  that  when  he  should 
come  to  the  material  parts  of  the  case,  they  might  so  far  work  on 
your  minds  as  to  induce  you  to  give  credit  to  him.  Do  you  think  he 
would  not  have  swoi*n  to  hang  Jackson,  if  he  thought  it  material  to 
get  his  money  from  Mr.  Pitt  ?  No  reward  did  he  require,  no  reward 
did  he  ask,  but  only  the  amount  of  a  debt  due  to  him  by  the  prisoner, 
that  was  all  he  expected,  all  he  desired  to  receive.  Now,  can  you 
imagine  that  he  would  have  hesitated  but  fi-om  an  affected  delicacy. 


c 


THE    REV.    WILLIAM  JACKSON,  257 

that  he  might  reserve  himself  for  what  he  thought  the  most  important 
parts  of  the  case. 

The  character  of  Cockayne  has  been  supported  by  a  witness — the 
character  of  Cockayne  has  been  given  by  himself  —he  was  shocked 
at  the  base  idea  of  being  accused  of  perjury;  he  was  happy  in 
declaring  that  he  thought  that  a  greater  reproach  than  to  have  led  his 
friend  into  a  crime — the  greatest  crime  he  could  commit — and  to  have 
betrayed  him  when  he  had  done  so.  What  a  witness !  who  glowed 
with  indignation  at  the  imputation  of  perjury — and  gloried  in  murder 
— for  it  Avas  positive  murder,  if  he  knew  the  man  meant  to  do  this, 
to  encourage  him  in  it,  to  support  him  in  it,  and  then  to  betray  him. 
Do  you  feel  such  a  man  as  this,  a  witness  on  whose  testimony  you 
ought  to  take  away  the  life  of  a  fellow-creature  ?  In  England,  had 
he  been  a  witness  in  such  a  case  as  this,  he  must  have  been  sent  off 
the  table,  and  the  jury  must  have  been  discharged ;  but  by  crossing 
the  sea,  he  is  to  become  a  good  witness  ;  and  he  can  take  away  the 

j  life  of  a  man  in  Ireland,  though  in  England  he  could  not  touch  a 
hair  of  his  head.  If  the  court  shall  be  against  me  and  say  that  one 
witness  is  sutficient,   I  submit :  but  I  say  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the 

i  jury,  examine  your  hearts  well,  and  say,  will  you  be  satisfied  on  the 

i  evidence  of  such  a  witness,  to  take  away  the  life  of  any  man. 

Lord  Clonmel You  have  heard  what  has  been  said  by  your 

counsel ;  would  you  wish  to  add  anything  to  what  they  have  said  ? 

Mr.  Jackson. — My  lord,  I  wish  to  consult  my  counsel  whether  it 
would  be  proper. 

After  some  conference  with  his  counsel,  Mr.  Jackson  said  he  would 
not  trouble  the  court. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant,  in  reply. — My  lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the 
jury.  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  in  my  life  rose  with  more  anxiety 
to  discharge  that  duty  which  I  owe  to  the  public — an  anxiety  lest  I 
should  leave  anything  undone,  which  that  duty  demanded,  and  an 
anxiety,  lest  in  the  discharge  of  that  duty  I  should  transgress  those 
limits  which  the  humanity  and  conscience  of  an  advocate  prescribe 
to  him,  when  he  speaks  in  a  case,  where  the  life  of  a  party  is  at  stake. 

]  Therefore  I  conjure  you,  gentlemen,  to  discharge  your  minds  from 
everything  you  may  have  heard  before  this  day,  upon  the  subject  of 
the  trial ;  from  every  impression,  which  the  mention  of  such  a  crime 

i  may  have  occasioned,  and  that  you  will  listen  to  the  court,  who  are 
bound  to  declare  the  law  as  you  are  to  decide  the  fact,  and  take  from 
their  opinion  what  the  law  is.  I  have  heard  this  subject  treated  for 
two  hours  past  as  if  this  trial  were  in  Great  Britain,  and  that  you 
were  called  upon,   not  to  decide  the  case  upon  law  existing  in  this 

i  country  where  the  trial  is  had,  but  as  if  it  were  had  in  the  sister 
kingdom.  To  borrow  an  expression  from  the  witness,  I  should  feel 
this  the  severest  day  I  ever  experienced,  if  that  were  to  be  the  case  : 
or  that  I  could  bring  myself  to  suspect  that  such  language  would  be 
used,  because  I  should  be  controlled  by  those  having  power  so  to  do. 
There  is  nothing  clearer,  than  that,  by  the  law  of  Ireland,  one  witness 
believed  is  sufficient  to  convict,  and  I  conjure  your  lordships  with  the 
utmost  earnestness,  if  I  am  wrong  in  the  law,  that  you  will  correct 
me.  It  will  become  my  duty  to  state  the  evidence,  and,  under  the 
direction  of  the  coui't,  those  facts,  upon  which  you,  gentlemen,  are  to 


258  TRIAL   OF 

form  your  judgment.  The  prisoner  stands  indicted  for  two  distinct 
species  of  higli  treason :  tirst,  for  compassing  and  imagining  the  death 
of  the  King  :  next,  for  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  ;  and  that  I 
may  not,  by  any  possibility,  be  guilty  of  misleading  your  judgments, 
I  shall  refer  in  the  course  of  the  observations  I  shall  make,  to  that 
which  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  first  authority.  The  cases  of  com- 
passing the  death  of  the  King,  or  adhering  to  his  enemies,  are  the 
only  instances  in  the  law,  where  the  will  and  intention,  prosecuted 
by  an  act,  whether  successful  or  not,  are  equivalent  to  the  deed.  The 
moment  the  wicked  intention  of  compassing  the  death  of  tlie  King, 
or  adhering  to  his  enemies  is  followed  by  an  act,  which  you  shall 
believe  to  have  been  in  prosecution  of  those  schemes,  the  guilt  is 
complete  :  the  measure  of  the  iniquity  of  the  party  is  full.  Where- 
fore for  the  advantage  of  the  prisoner,  for  the  charge  is  sti'ong  against 
him,  it  is  necessary  that  the  indictment  upon  which  he  was  arraigned 
should  state  all  those  specific  facts  from  which  the  intention  is  to  be 
drawn ;  for,  as  an  overt  act  of  that  intention,  no  evidence  can  be 
given,  that  is  not  stated  specifically  by  the  indictment ;  and  no 
evidence  can  be  given,  that  is  not  evidence  of  the  act  laid.  You  will 
see,  gentlemen,  the  advantage  which  the  prisoner  derives  from  this ; 
before  he  is  put  to  plead,  he  is  apprized  of  everything  alleged  against 
him  ;  directly  the  contrary  of  that,  which  occurs  in  any  other  criminal 
prosecution.  The  use  1  make  of  that  is,  that  you  may  see  whether 
there  has  been  any  use  made  by  the  prisoner  of  the  notice  which  he 
had  of  the  charge  brought  against  him. 

Having  thus  stated  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  law  with  the  utmost 
scrupulousness,  let  me  state  the  overt  acts,  and  see  whether  you  are 
satisfied  upon  them.  The  single  question  for  you,  gentlemen,  is, 
whether  the  facts  alleged  were  done  by  the  prisoner  ?  and  2dly,  if  ' 
done,  whether  they  relate  to  the  charge  brought  against  him.  I 
should  be  much  better  pleased,  I  declare  most  solemnly,  that  I  did 
not  think  there  was  evidence  to  support  any  of  the  overt  acts  laid  in 
this  indictment,  and  that  I  am  sorry  to  say,  there  is  evidence  for  your 
consideration  upon  every  one  of  them.  You,  gentlemen,  will  weigh 
it  Avith  every  possible  attention,  the  life  of  a  fellow-creature  being  at 
stake.  Mr.  Cockayne  is  the  principal,  but  not  the  only  witness  in 
support  of  the  overt  acts.  Nothing  can  make  so  strong  an  impression 
upon  the  mind  of  a  jury  as  the  manner,  the  air,  and  temper  with 
which  testimony  is  given.  The  counsel  for  the  prisoner  endeavoured 
to  take  advantage  of  that  distress  under  which  the  witness  laboured, 
as  if  he  had  been  prevailed  upon  to  interfere  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  away  the  life  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  The  witness  said 
that  this  day  he  felt  as  the  most  severe  he  had  ever  experienced — 
that  his  mind  had  been  shaken  for  some  time  past,  and  you,  gentle- 
men, saw  the  attempt  which  was  made  to  represent  this  evidence  as 
the  effect  of  intimidation  and  power.  But  no  such  thing  appeared. 
He  was  threatened  with  confinement ;  that  was,  for  not  signing  his 
examination  after  he  had  made  it.  He  told  you,  he  was  acquitte 
upon  the  charge  of  perjury.  Tliis  is  further  supported  by  evidence 
He  declined  to  make  any  objections  in  point  of  law,  and  he  w 
questioned  as  to  the  conversation  with  Nailor,  who  is  not  produced  ti 
contradict  wliat   tlie  witness  said.     In  this  light,  Mr.  Cockayne  cami 


THE    REV.    WILLIAM    JACKSON.  259 

forward,  and  though  he  could  not  take  upon  him  to  tell  with  what 
intention,  Jackson  came  to  Ireland,  positively ;  the  overt  act  laid 
with  regard  to  Ireland,  is  that  he  came  to  procure  an  invasion.  But 
if  you  believe  the  evidence  of  Cockayne,  see  the  conduct  of  Jackson 
upon  his  coming  here,  and  see  from  that,  whether  his  coming  was  not 
for  the  purpose  imputed  to  him.  The  witness  tells  you,  that  upon 
their  first  coming  to  Ii-eland,  the  first  conversation  arose  upon  the 
politics  of  L'eland,  and  the  dissatisfaction  of  part  of  the  people  in 
Ireland.  He  said  that  a  person  of  the  name  of  Lewins  solicited 
credentials  to  shew  Hamilton  Rowan,  to  give  him  a  confidence  in 
holding  communications  with  the  prisoner.  The  witness  told  you, 
that  Jackson  expressed  his  concern  at  having  given  some  of  the 
papers  for  this  pui'pose,  and  he  wished  to  have  them  back  again,  as 
he  would  not  trust  them  in  the  hands  of  others,  if  he  had  them  back. 
He  told  you  that  there  was  a  meeting  at  Rowan's  :  he  saw  a  relative 
of  Rowan's  there,  who  went  away,  after  which  Irish  politics,  and  the 
United  Irishmen  were  the  subjects  of  conversation.  I  say,  gentle- 
men, and  I  am  sorry  for  it,  that  there  is  not  a  single  overt  act  in 
support  of  which  there  is  not  evidence  for  the  consideration  of  a  jury. 
He  said  there  were  conversations  about  sending  some  one  to  France, 
and  that  Tone  agreed  to  go  at  one  time,  but  receded  at  anothei%  He 
talked  also  of  Dr.  Reynolds,  and  also  of  the  propriety  and  impropriety 
of  giving  them  instructions ;  that  the  prisoner  did  not  approve  so 
much  of  Reynolds,  as  he  did  of  Tone. 

[Here  Mr.  Prime- Serjeant  was  interrupted  by  the  prisoner's 
counsel,  who  said  they  had  now  a  witness  of  the  name  of  Watson  to 
impeach  the  character  of  Cockayne.] 

Mr.  Solicitor-Genekal. — My  lords,  in  the  absence  of  the 
Attorney- General*  it  is  my  duty  to  resist  the  examination  of  this 
witness.  I  cannot  submit  to  such  a  precedent  being  established,  and 
the  more  so  as  every  proceeding  in  this  trial,  and  the  solemnity,  will 
form  a  precedent  for  future  cases.  The  witness  they  called  to  the 
fact  alleged,  when  they  had  stated  their  case  for  the  prisoner,  was 
William  Humphries,  who  being  called  did  not  answer,  and  then  they 
had  just  learned  that  he  was  gone  to  the  Isle  of  Man.  They  did  not 
call  any  other  person — nor  did  they  say  that  they  had  any  witness  of 
the  name  of  Watson,  which  shows  this  attempt  to  be  an  after-thought 
— a  thought  fabricated  after  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  had  spoken 
to  evidence,  and  whilst  the  counsel  for  the  crown  were  proceeding  in 
reply.  Whatever  may  be  the  humane  disposition  of  the  court,  I  trust 
that  they  will  not  dispense  with  that  rule  and  order  of  proceeding 
which  the  wisdom  of  your  venerable  predecessors,  the  judges  of 
England  and  Ireland,  have  made  part  of  the  law,  wisely  regulated 
for  the  investigation  of  truth,  and  a  departure  from  which,  under  such 
circumstances,  would  lead  to  confusion,  may  be  introductory  of 
perjury,  and  subversive  of  truth. 

Lord  Clonmel. — I  confess  I  think  it  is  extremely  irregular,  and  I 
tell  you  why.  See  what  Mr.  Curran,  who  stated  the  case,  said — 
"  The  only  evidence  I  shall  produce  will  be  a  witness  to  contradict 

*  Mr.  Attorney-General  had  retired  to  take  some  refreshment,  it  being  at  this 
time  near  two  o'cloclt  on  Friday  morning 


260  TRIAL   OF 

Cockayne" — tliat  witness  did  not  attend.  However,  where  the  life 
of  a  man  is  to  be  affected,  I  will  go  as  far  as  I  can  in  yielding  to  his 
desire,  even  against  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  rule,  particularly  as 
my  brothers  are  disposed  to  grant  the  indulgence. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — My  lord,  I  feel  that  it  wovild  not  be  a  stretch  of  the 
rule  to  say,  "  Sir,  you  are  precluded  from  giving  further  evidence." 
But  I  proposed  to  call  the  witness  from  a  conviction  that  I  would 
not  do  my  duty  without  proposing  to  call  him  when  it  was  mentioned 
to  me. 

John  "Watson,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Curran. 

Q,  Do  you  know  John  Cockayne  ?  A.  I  have  seen  Mr.  Cockayne 
the  attorney  of  London. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  ?     A.  I  do — I  see  him  now. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  in  London  ?  A.  I  did,  by  his  character,  for 
near  two  years,  while  I  was  a  licensed  lottery  man  there. 

Q.  You  knew  his  character  ?     A.  I  have  heard  his  character. 

Q.  "Was  it  a  good  one  or  a  bad  one  ?  A.  I  knew  his  character  in 
his  profession  as  an  attorney,  not  his  private  character  as  a  man. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — That  might  go  to  his  being  a  good  or  a  bad 
attorney. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  character?  A.  I  do  as  to  his 
practice. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  as  to  his  morality  and  integrity  ?  A.  There  was 
neitlier  morality  nor  integrity  in  it. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — His  general  character  as  an  attorney  is  not 
the  point  in  issue. 

"Witness. — There  was  nothing  in  his  practice  that  had  morality  or 
integrity — it  appeared  from  his  connections — he  was  connected  with 
informers. 

[The  Counsel  for  the  Crown  proposed  to  cross-examine  this  wit- 
ness.] 

Court — We  cannot  permit  it,  because  this  man  knowing  nothing 
of  the  private  character  of  the  witness,  he  could  not  have  known 
anything  as  to  the  material  point  to  be  enquired,  whether  the  witness 
was  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath.  What  do  you  mean  by  his  private 
character  ?  A.  His  private  dealing,  about  which  I  know  nothing. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  this  kingdom  ?  A.  Twelve  months. 
Q.  How  long  since  you  gave  any  information  about  this  matter  ? 
A.  I  was  in  court,  and  a  gentleman  here  having  heard  me  mention 
Cockayne's  name  sometime  ago,  called  me  forward,  I  did  not  know 
for  what  purpose. 

The  witness  was  ordered  to  retire. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant  continued Gentlemen,  the  first  ovei't  act 

is,  that  he  came  to  Ireland  to  procure  information  of  the  king's 
subjects.  The  second  is,  that  he  endeavoured  to  incite  an  invasion — 
but  it  is  irresistible  as  to  the  third,  if  you  believe  that  the  prisoner, 
on  the  21st  of  April  did  excite,  exhort,  and  counsel,  and  as  far  as  in 
him  lay,  did  encourage  Theobald  Wolfe  Tone  to  go  into  parts  beyond 
seas,  to  France,  to  represent  to  the  ruling  powers  there,  that  divers 
subjects  of  this  kingdom  were  disaffected,  &c.  Gentlemen,  if  your 
notes  and  mine  differ  upon  this  evidence,  I  beseech  you  to  pay  no 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  261 

nttcntion  to  mine.  But  as  I  have  taken  it,  the  witness  has  heard 
alternately  in  conversations  fi'om  Jackson,  Rowan,  Tone  and  Reynolds, 
that  there  was  a  scheme  to  send  Tone  or  Reynolds,  with  a  plan  to 
Paris.  That  expressions  of  encouragements  were  used  to  Tone  by 
the  prisoner  and  Rowan.  That  the  prisoner  was  present  at  some 
encouraging  conversation  by  Rowan,  and  upon  some  conversations 
with  Tone,  who  made  objections  on  account  of  his  family,  and  the 
loss  that  might  accrue  by  missing  opportunities  in  Ireland.  Jackson 
told  him,  he  would  find  the  French  a  generous  people.  Was  it 
necessary,  gentleman,  to  have  recourse  to  the  French  upon  the  subject 
of  manufactures,  or  a  law  suit  ?  No,  gentleman,  it  was  a  public 
measure,  and  the  reward  was  to  be  public  also.  It  appeared,  gentle- 
men, in  evidence  that  Jackson  came  into  Ireland  with  a  fictitious 
name,  that  of  Thomas  Popkins,  which  he  used  in  his  correspondence. 
It  will  be  for  you  to  discover,  and  ascertain  for  what  purpsse  the 
parties  involved  the  matter  in  these  obscurities.  Why,  in  one  letter 
the  subject  should  be  manufactures,  and  in  the  next,  the  subject 
should  be  law.  The  fourth  and  fifth  overt  acts  are  a  conspiracy  with 
others  to  procure  a  person  to  represent  to  the  French,  the  dissatisfac- 
tion of  part  of  the  people,  and  to  excite  an  invasion.  With  respect 
to  these  two  overt  acts,  I  think  there  is  matter  in  the  correspondence 
of  Jackson,  when  particularly  adverted  to,  for  the  jury,  to  consider 
whether  there  be  proof  of  them  or  not.  But,  under  the  correction  of 
the  court,  I  say,  that  if  a  single  overt  act  be  proved,  clearly  connected 
with  the  treason  with  which  the  prisoner  is  charged,  there  is  sufficient 
to  warrant  you  to  convict  him.  But  I  acknowledge  that  if  on  the 
other  hand,  you  believe  none  of  them  are  proved,  the  law  and  your 
conscience  call  upon  you  to  acquit  him.  The  sixth  overt  act  is,  that 
on  the  2 1  st  of  April  a  letter  was  written  to  William  Stone  to  reveal 
his  intention  to  send  a  person  to  France  to  represent  the  state  of  this 
country.  The  evidence  of  Cockayne  was,  that  Tone  agreed  to  go, 
and  afterwai'ds  receded  from  that  agreement.  The  letter  was  written 
on  the  21st  of  April,  and  when  he  began,  it  was  conceived  that  Tone 
was  to  go  ;  and  in  this  letter  are  these  remarkable  words  ;  "  Let  them 
know  whei'e  I  am,  and  that  I  am  doing  everything  I  can  to  serve 
Mr.  Nicholas,  and  that  I  am  procuring  a  person  to  carry  the  covenants 
and  leases  ; — a  few  days  will  decide  whether  we  go  or  not.  I  have 
written  the  above  during  the  negotiation  with  the  person  ;  he  has 
this  morning  24th  of  April,  decided  that  his  private  aifairs  will  not 
let  him  go."  If,  gentlemen,  you  believe  the  evidence  of  Cockayne — 
if  you  believe  that  this  letter  was  written — if  you  believe  that  this 
chai'ge  in  the  indictment  is  proved,  you  will  consider  whether  it  is 
connected  with  either  or  both  of  the  treasons  with  which  he  is  indicted. 
"  I  wish  you  would  write  the  first  post  day,  and  tell  Mr.  Nicholas 
that  to-morrow  I  send  two  letters  for  him,  containing  opinions 
thoroughly  considered,  and  well  digested  by  counsel  here."  This 
was  begun  on  the  21st  of  April,  and  the  letter  appears  to  be  concluded 
on  the  24th  when  it  was  put  into  the  office  on  that  evening,  containing 
the  paper  of  the  State  of  the  kingdom,  as  appears  from  the  evidence 
of  De  Joncourt.  The  seventh  overt  act  is  grounded  upon  the  same 
evidence  ;  it  is  the  same  act  laid  to  be  by  a  person  unknown  : — if  that 
alone  had  been  proved,  and  you  are  of  opinion  that  it  relates  to  the 


2tJ2  TKIAL    OF 

treason  charged,  it  will  warrant  you  to  find  him  guilty.  The  letters 
were  sent  to  the  post-office  by  Cockayne  ;  they  were  subscribed  by 
the  directions  of  the  prisoner.  They  got  into  the  hands  of  Jackson 
himself,  and  it  was  for  him  to  account  if  they  were  put  in  by  other 
means.  The  letter  proved  by  Cockayne  to  have  been  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Jackson,  and  found  among  the  papers  of  Stone,  requesting 
that  the  papers  before  left  might  not  be  made  use  of,  shews  that 
Jackson  came  to  Ireland,  having  prefixed  the  correspondence  wdth 
fictitious  names.  He  forbids  this  afterwards.  The  ninth  overt  act  is 
a  letter  written  to  Benjamin  Beresford,  requesting  him  "  to  inform 
certain  persons,"  &c.  "  You  are  requested  to  see  Madgett  directly,  and 
inform  him  that  two  letters,  with  the  opinions  of  the  greatest  counsel," 
&Q.  That  very  night  these  two  letters  were  intercepted  in  the  office. 
On  the  morning  of  the  next  day  Cockayne  applied  to  Mr.  Hamilton 
to  know  whether  the  letter  &c.  had  been  intercepted,  and  furnishes 
the  original  paper  in  the  hand-writing  of  Jackson,  from  which  the 
copy  was  made.  Hamilton  took  a  press  copy  of  it,  which  being 
imperfect,  it  was  objected  to  by  the  prisoner  ;  the  copy  was  written 
in  the  prisoner's  presence,  and  by  his  directions  sent  to  the  post-office. 
The  eleventh  overt  act  is,  that  he  sent  information  to  France.  This, 
gentlemen,  goes  as  well  to  the  papers  which  were  forwarded  as  the 
others  which  have  been  produced  in  evidence.  Now,  gentlemen,  see 
whether  any  man  living,  of  the  most  scrupulous  and  tender  conscience, 
can  hesitate  to  pronoimce  what  the  object  and  motive  of  such  papers 
were.  Look  at  the  words  expressing  the  situation  of  Ii'eland,  and 
inviting  "  an  invasion  in  sufficient  force."  Here  is  nothing  of  trade 
or  manufactures  ;  nothing  of  law  suits  or  covenants  or  leases.  If  you 
believe  that  this  was  written  by  the  procurement  of  Jackson,  to  be 
forwarded  by  his  procurement  as  Cockayne  has  sworn,  to  the  French 
people,  that  generous  people,  who  were  to  support  the  Ii-ish  nation — 

]Mr.  Jackson. — I  beg  Mr.  Prime- Serjeant's  pardon,  there  is  no 
e^'idence  that  the  paper  was  to  be  forwarded. 

Mr.  Prime- Sekjeaxt. — I  beseech  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  if  I 
liave  mistated,  even  to  his  feeling,  what  the  case  will  not  warrant,  to 
apprize  me  of  it,  and  I  will  retract  it,  with  more  satisfaction  than  any 
assertion  I  ever  made  in  my  life.  I  intended  to  say,  that  if  the  jury 
believe  it  was  written  by  the  procurement  of  the  prisoner,  and 
intended  to  be  foinvarded  though  intercepted,  the  crime  in  point  of 
law  is  consummate. 

ISIr.  Jackson The  indictment   states,  that  the  letter  was  to  be 

sent  to  Benjamin  Beresford.  There  is  no  such  thing  upon  the  super- 
scription. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant — The  tenth  overt  act  does  not  state  it,  but 
the  ninth  does  state  that  the  letter  was  to  be  sent  to  Benjamin 
Beresford — the  letter  in  evidence  a  Monsieur  Beresford.  It  is  matter 
for  the  jury  to  consider  whether  the  evidence  proves  the  charge  in 
the  indictment.  K  the  jury  believe  that  this  letter  was  in  the  custody 
of  Jackson  and  written  for  the  purpose  imputed  to  him,  it  is  a  new 
overt  act.  I  agree  with  the  gentlemen  concerned  for  the  prisoner 
that  the  evidence  of  Cockayne,  under  the  particular  circumstances 
under  which  it  comes  forward,  does  come  so  infected  as  not  to 
have   that  weight,   which   it   would  have  if  those  circumstances  did 


THE  REV.    WILLIAM  JACKSON.  263 

not  exist.  But  I  say  his  testimony  is  corroborated  by  such  a  variety 
of  circumstances  as  establish  the  truth  of  it.  Xo  person  is  brought 
forward  to  disprove  the  hand-writing  of  Jackson,  as  pro\ed  by 
Cockayne.  Witli  respect  to  Mr.  Tone,  it  will  be  a  subject  for  your 
consideration,  gentlemen,  whether  it  was  competent  for  the  gentlemen 
concerned  for  the  prisoner  to  produce  him.  If  he  had  been  produced 
by  the  Crown,  he  might  very  well  object  and  say,  "  I  will  not  accuse 
myself."  They  had  notice  by  the  indictment  that  his  testimony  might 
be  materially,  and  could  have  come  prepared.  If  there  be  weight  in 
these  observations  your  lordships  and  the  jur}-  will  give  them  a  pro- 
portionate attention — if  there  be  not,  you  will  throw  them  out  of  your 
consideration. 

Gentlemen,  I  feel  a  degree  of  satisfaction  in  my  mind,  arising  from 
this  circumstance,  that  I  am  not  conscious  of  having  made  an  obser- 
vation which  the  case  will  not  warrant.  Gentlemen,  if  you  believe 
the  evidence,  you  have  a  duty  to  discharge  to  yourselves,  your 
country,  and  your  God  ;  and  if  you  do  not  believe  it,  your  duty  is  to 
acquit  the  prisoner.  If  you  have  such  a  doubt,  not  such  as  womanish 
fears  may  suggest,  but  such  as  your  sober  judgment  may,  you  will 
give  it  due  consideration  and  lean  to  the  side  of  mercy.  I  am  sure 
the  world  will  be  satisfied  ^^^th  your  verdict  after  you  have  given  the 
case  such  consideration. 

Mr.  Jacksox. — I  feel  a  weight  upon  my  mind  to  make  an  obser- 
vation or  two  upon  what  Mr.  Prime- Serjeant  has  said  upon  the 
superscription  of  the  letter  to  Monsieur  Beresford.  One  was  directed 
to  Basle  in  Switzerland,  a  neutral  power  ;  and  another  was  directed 
to  Amsterdam,  which  at  that  time  was  at  war  with  France.  The 
places  to  which  the  letters  were  directed,  were  either  neutral  places, 
or  at  war  with  France : — the  letters  were  not  sent  to  enemies  of 
England.  There  is  nothing  but  constructive  evidence  that  these 
papers  were  intended  for  the  enemies  of  Ireland.  This,  my  lords,  is 
all  I  have  to  sav. 

Lord  Cloxmel,  Chief- Justice — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  this  case 
of  the  King  against  William  Jackson,  clerk,  the  indictment  against 
the  prisoner  is  founded  on  the  statute  of  treasons,  25  Ed.  Ill,  chap  2. 
a  statute  that  has  been  considered  as  one  of  the  greatest  protections 
to  the  subject  that  ever  passed  ;  as  stating  and  precisely  ascertaining 
what  shall  be  treason  to  aifect  the  life  of  the  subject,  to  prevent  any 
unascertained  crime  of  that  nature  from  alFecting  him.  The  two 
branches  of  treason  comprehended  in  this  indictment  are,  the  compassing 
the  death  of  the  King,  and  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  I  woidd 
now  mention  a  principle  or  two  that  have  never  been  doubted  ;  one 
is,  that  a  conspiracy  to  levy  war  against  the  King  or  his  government, 
is  evidence  of  compassing  the  death  of  the  King.  This  is  mentioned 
in  the  works  of  aU  the  great  crown  lawyers ;  in  4  Bl.  Comm.  82. 
3  Inst.  9-  Foster's  Cr.  L.  212,  213.  You  will  understand  me  when 
I  say,  that  e\-idence  of  conspiracy  to  levy  war  against  the  King  or  his 
government,  is  evidence  of  compassing  the  King's  death ;  and  the 
reason  justifies  the  principle  ;  for  the  result  of  such  a  conspiracy  is 
probably  the  King's  destruction,  either  by  his  death  or  his  impri- 
sonment, which  may  lead  to  his  death  ;  and  for  that  reason  it  is 
applicable   as   evidence  of  compassing  the  King's  death.     Again — 


264  TRIAL    OF 

another  principle  is,  that  giving  intelligence  to  the  King's  enemies  is 
evidence  of  the  second  branch  of  this  indictment,  the  adhering  to  the 
King's  enemies.     This  is  a  clear  and  simple  species  of  high  treason  ; 
each   part  of  the  indictment  charges   a  clear  high  treason,  not  con- 
structive nor  involved.     It  lias  been  fortunate  in  this  country,  though 
it  may  make  the  difficulty  the   greater  on  the  judges  at  present,  that 
there  is  scarcely  an  instance   in  the  recollection  of  the  oldest  lawyer, 
of  that  crime  having   been  committed   in  this  kingdom,  and  a  prose- 
cution for  it ;  but  a  case  has  been   detei'mined  in  the  Court  of  King's 
Bench  in  England,  in  the  year  1758,  resembling  the  present  in  many 
instances.     The   King   against   Dr.   Hensey,*  who  was  convicted  of 
high  treason  and  judgment  of  death  pronounced  on  him  ;  in  that  case. 
Lord  Mansfield,  with   the  concurrence  of  his   brethern  followed  by 
Foster,   and  as  able  assistants  as  the  Chief- Justice  had  at  any  time, 
lays  down  the  law  thus — "  Levying  war,  is  an  overt  act  of  compassing 
the  death  of  the  King.     An  overt  act  of  the  intention  of  levying  war 
or  of  bringing  war  upon  the   kingdom,"  (and  those  words   are  very 
material)  "  is   settled  to  be   an  overt   act  of  compassing  the   King's 
death.     Soliciting  a  foreign  prince  even  in  amity  with  the  Crown,  to 
invade  the  x'ealm  is  such  an  overt  act.     And   so  was  Cardinal  Pole's 
case.     And  one  of  these  letters  is  such  a  solicitation  of  a  foreign  prince 
to   invade  the  realm.      Letters   of  advice   and  correspondence,  and 
intelligence  to  the  enemy  to  enable  them  to  annoy  us  or  defend  them- 
selves, written  and  sent  in  order  to  be   delivered  to  the  enemy,  ai"e, 
though  intercepted,  overt  acts  of  both  these  species  of  treason  that 
have  been  mentioned  ;  and  this  was   detemiined  by  all  the  Judges  of 
England  in  Gregg's  case :  where  the  indictment  (which  I  have  seen) 
is  much  like  the  present  indictment.     The   only  doubt  there  arose 
from  the  letters  of  intelligence  being  intercepted  and  never  delivered  ; 
but  they  held   that  that   circumstance  did  not  alter  the  case."     And, 
gentlemen,  to  justify  that  doctrine,   one  obvious  reason  must  occur  to 
all  your  minds ;  that  no   person  could   be   indicted  with  effect  for 
sending  letters,  if  the  law  was  that  they  must  have  gone  to  tlie  place 
for  which   tliey  were  intended ;  because  in  that   case  they  could  not 
possibly  be  laid  hold  of  for  the  purposes  of  prosecution  ;  it  would  be 
grossly  absurd.     Another  paragraph   in  that   case  I  will  read  to  you 
as  bearing  on  the  facts  in   this  case.     "  As  to  the  fact  in  the  present 
case — 'the  jury   are   to   consider   whether  they  were  written   by  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar,  in  order  to  be  delivered  to  the   enemy,  and  with 
intent  to  convey  to  the   enemy  such   intelligence  as  might  serve  and 
assist  tliem  in  carrying  on  war  against  this  Crown,  or  in  avoiding  the 
destinations  of  our  enterprizes  and  armaments  against  them."     I  think 
I  have  now  laid  down   certain  principles  and  clear  positions  in  your 
minds  as  far  as  I  have   gone,  which  will  go  a  great  way  in  directing 
you  in  the  consideration  of  this  case  ;  I  will   now  state  to  you  how 
this  indictment  is  laid,  and  go  through  the  different  overt  acts  stated 
to  support  the  intention  ;  for  that  intention,  if  supported  by  the  acts 
stated  on  any  of  them,  will  complete  the  crime  against  the  prisoner  ; 
any  one   of  them,   if  you  believe   the   intention,   and   the  overt  act 
to  be  proved,  will  complete  the  charge  against  him.     I  shall  endeavour, 

*  1  Burr,  642. 


THE    REV.    WILLIAM    JACKSON.  265 

feeling  great  difficulty  from  my  own  inability  at  this  late  hour  of 
the  night,  to  collect  the  facts  in  the  best  order  for  your  consideration  ; 
it  will  be  your  verdict,  and  not  the  verdict  of  the  Court ;  we  are 
responsible  for  the  law,  it  is  our  duty  to  state  the  law,  and  I  have 
laid  down  principles  from  great  authority ;  I  shall  only  add  to  them, 
that  by  the  common  law  of  both  countries,  one  witness  alone  is  sufficient 
in  these  cases  :  if  you  believe  that  witness,  and  if  he  swears  to  the 
facts  that  are  laid,  and  if  they  are  sufficiently  stated  to  be  the  acts  of 
the  prisoner  in  support  of  the  intention  charged,  it  is  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  that  by  the  common  law  a  second  is  not  necessary,  and  no 
statute  on  the  subject  to  contradict  that,  exists  in  this  country  ;  and 
here,  let  me  say  how  the  law  appears  to  be  in  that  case ;  it  was  not 
only  the  opinion  of  Judge  Foster,  one  of  the  most  honest  and  greatest 
lawyers  that  England  ever  knew,  and  who  ranks  with  Lord  Hale  ; 
but  also,  as  appears  from  his  Crown  Law,  p.  233,  it  was  the  general 
opinion,  that  at  common  law,  one  witness  was  sufficient  in  the  case  of 
treason,  notwithstanding  Lord  Coke's  opinion  to  the  contrary :  the 
opinion  of  Judge  Foster  is  the  same  with  Serjeant  Hawkins,  and 
though  Hawkins  is  only  a  compiler,  and  states  many  doubts,  yet  he 
is  certainly  one  of  the  most  faithful  and  laborious  compilers  that  we 
have.  Let  me  now  state  the  facts  from  the  words  of  the  indictment. 
William  Jackson  is  charged,  for  that,  at  a  time  when  open  war  existed 
between  France  and  England — of  which  Foster  says,  that  public 
notoriety  is  sufficient  evidence — he  did,  knowing  the  premises,  but 
contriving  the  tranquillity  of  the  kingdom  to  disquiet,  the  government 
to  subvert,  and  the  King  of  and  from  the  crown  to  depose  and  deprive, 
and  to  death  and  final  destruction  to  bring  and  put ;  did  on  the  3d 
day  of  April,  in  the  34th  year  of  the  King  &c.  at  the  parish  of  St. 
Andrew  &c.  traitorously  compass,  imagine,  and  intend  the  King,  of 
and  from  the  crown  of  Ireland,  to  depose  and  wholly  deprive,  and  the 
King  to  kill,  and  bring  and  put  to  death.  This  is  the  general  charge  ; 
that  he  imagined  and  compassed  the  king's  death,  and  at  that  time 
and  under  those  circumstances ;  and  then  in  the  first  count,  diffiirent 
means  are  stated :  first,  that  he  landed  in  Ireland,  for  the  purpose 
of  procuring  information  concerning  the  situation  and  disposition 
of  the  King's  subjects,  now  as  to  the  dispostion  of  the  King's  sub- 
jects, that  part  of  the  charge  will  be  more  in  your  mind  when 
you  come  to  consider  what  I  shall  lay  great  stress  on,  the  state  oj 
the  nation  that  was  sent  over.  It  is  next  laid,  that  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar,  did  consult  to  levy  war  in  the  kingdom  of  Ireland,  against 
the  King  :  and  if  it  be  proved  to  your  satisfaction,  that  he  did  conspire 
to  levy  war,  and  to  invite  the  French  power  to  invade  this  kingdom  ; 
it  is  evidence  in  support  of  this  count.  It  is  next  laid,  that  the  pri- 
soner did  incite  and  endeavour  to  persuade  one  Theobald  Wolfe  Tone, 
to  go  into  foi'eign  parts  to  represent  to  the  French  powers  that  divers 
subjects  of  Ireland  were  dissatisfied  with  the  government,  and  to 
persuade  them  to  invade  Ireland ;  this  also  will  be  applicable  to  part 
of  that  statement  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  dwell  on  hereafter. 
The  next  act  laid  is,  that  the  prisoner  conspired  with  other  persons 
to  procure  and  provide  a  person  to  go  beyond  the  seas — it  is  to  the 
same  pui-pose,  but  more  general  than  the  former,  which  applied  to 
Theobald  Wolfe  Tone  only.     Next,  that  he  did  conspire  with  others, 


266  TRIAL,   OP 

to  send  a  person  to  France  to  give  information  of  the  state  of  Ireland 
— and  this  also  is  evidence,  if  proved,  of  compassing  the  King's  death. 
It  is  next  charged  that  he  did  compose  and  write,  and  cause  to  be 
written,  a  letter  to  William  Stone  in  England,  and  did  by  that  letter 
instruct  him  to  disclose  to  the  persons  having  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment in  France,  a  scheme  of  the  prisoner's  to  send  a  person  to  France 
to  satisfy  said  persons  of  divers  subjects  of  Ireland  being  ready  to 
negotiate  with  them,  for  an  invasion  of  Ireland,  but  that  the  private 
affairs  of  such  person  would  not  permit  him  to  go,  and  therefore  that 
the  prisoner  wovdd  send  a  statement  of  the  situation  and  dispositions 
of  the  people  of  Ireland — this  is  evidence  also  of  compassing  the  death 
of  the  King.  The  next  act  laid  is  to  the  same  effect  of  the  last,  but 
put  more  generally,  and  this  and  all  that  I  have  mentioned,  go  in 
support  of  the  first  count.  The  next  charge  is  that  the  prisoner 
delivei-ed  and  caused  to  be  delivered  the  said  letters  into  the  post- 
office  here  ;  and  if  this  be  proved  it  falls  under  that  head  described  by 
Lord  Mansfield  in  Hensey's  case,  and  that  act  would  be  sufficient  to 
make  him  guilty  of  compassing  the  King's  death.  The  two  next 
overt  acts  laid  are,  the  writing  a  letter  to  Benjamin  Beresford,  and 
the  delivering  that  letter  into  the  post-office.  It  is  next  laid,  that  the 
prisoner  composed  and  wrote,  and  caused  to  be  written  divers  instruc- 
tions, inviting  the  King's  enemies  to  invade  Ireland — and  this  seems 
to  me  very  material  for  your  consideration :  it  is  stated  that  among 
other  things  the  following  particulars  are  contained,  "  that  the  Dis- 
senters are  steady  republicans." — (I  will  not  repeat  this  paper,  as  you 
have  already  heard  it  more  than  once.)  The  next  charge  is,  that  the 
prisoner  wrote  several  other  accounts  and  instructions  concerning  the 
people  of  Ii'eland,  and  all  these  accounts  caused  to  be  delivered  into 
the  post-office.  And,  in  the  next  charge,  those  words  which  I  have 
stated  ai-e  again  repeated.  These  are  the  charges,  all  of  which  ai'e 
applicable  to  the  first  count ;  and  if  any  of  them  are  substantially 
proved,  and  you  believe  it,  it  will  lead  you  to  find  the  prisoner  guilty. 
These  charges  are  applied  to  the  second  branch  of  the  indictment, 
and  support  it,  as  Avell  as  the  first,  if  proved,  I  shall  now  take  up 
the  evidence  in  the  order  it  was  laid  before  you,  and  it  will  be  for  you 
to  see  whether  the  intentions,  the  purposes  and  the  acts  proved,  be 
the  intentions,  the  purposes,  and  the  acts  of  the  prisoner  Jackson. 
Any  one  of  the  charges,  if  proved,  will  support  either  branch  of  the 
indictment,  and  I  shall  make  such  observations  as  occur  to  me  from 
time  to  time.  John  Cockayne  was  first  produced — ^he  swears  that  he 
has  known  the  prisoner  Jackson  ten  years ;  it  has  been  said  that  it 
appeared  fi-om  Cockayne  that  Jackson  came  hither  to  funiish  some 
provisions  for  the  French,  and  not  with  any  treasonable  design — but 
Cockayne's  evidence  was,  that  when  he  came  over,  he  did  not  think 
Jackson  would  put  himself  into  his  present  situation,  or  that  he  should 
ever  be  a  witness  against  him,  which  he  swears  he  is  very  sorry  for, 
if  you  believe  him.  They  dined,  he  says,  at  Counsellor  M'Nally's  ; 
Counsellor  Simon  Butler  dined  there ;  the  conversation  turned  on 
politics  at  large,  those  of  the  day,  and  those  of  the  Irish  nation  ;  it 
went  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  some  part  of  the  kingdom — now  that 
may  be  material,  if  you  believe  the  witness,  when  you  come  to  con- 
sider the  state  of  the  nation,  when  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  King's 


J 


THE  REV.  WILJLIAM  JACKSON.  267 

subjects  is  mentioned.  The  witness  then  says  that  he  saw  Mr.  Lewins 
at  Hyde's  cofFee-house,  that  he  asked  Jackson  for  some  papers  to 
deliver  to  Mr.  Rowan,  to  convince  him  that  he  was  a  man  with  whom 
he  might  converse  with  confidence ;  on  this  part  of  the  evidence,  one 
observation  arises  ;  as  soon  as  these  men  came  into  this  country,  if 
you  believe  Cockayne,  Jackson  furnishes  Lewins  with  certain  docu- 
ments, in  order  to  convince  Rowan  that  he  was  a  man  to  be  confiden- 
tially spoken  with — of  what  wei*e  they  to  speak  ?  why  was  he  to 
converse  with  Rowan,  a  prisoner  in  Newgate  ? — and  these  were  such 
papers  too,  that  Jackson  said  that  if  he  had  had  them  back,  he  would 
not  have  entrusted  them  to  Lewins  again — these  papers  were  asked 
by  Lewins  with  that  view,  but  whether  the  prisoner  gave  them  with 
that  view,  is  a  conclusion  for  you  to  draw  ;  this  passed  a  few  days 
after  Jackson's  arrival  here.  The  witness  and  Jackson  went  together 
to  Newgate  soon  after — the  conversation  turned  on  Irish  aiFairs — on 
the  United  Irishmen — on  some  dissatisfactions  among  the  people  in 
some  parts  of  the  kingdom  ;  it  does  not  appear  that  any  part  of  that 
conversation  was  about  manufactures  and  lawsuits,  the  topics  alluded 
to  in  some  of  Jackson's  letters — it  was  a  political  conversation — I  am 
not  saying  that  it  was  not  possible  such  a  thing  might  exist — far  from 
it — there  may  have  been  such  things  as  lawsuits  and  differences  in 
Jackson's  family,  and  Rowan  not  know  a  word  of  the  matter.  There 
was  another  meeting — there,  Tone  read  a  paper  but  the  witness  did 
not  hear  it ;  there  was  something  about  a  plan  to  send  Tone  to  France, 
and,  if  you  believe  the  witness,  Jackson  approved  of  Tone  for  the 
purpose,  more  than  of  Reynolds  ;  this  supports  what  he  said  about  the 
plan  of  sending  a  person  to  France :  the  witness  said  they  were  to  go 
with  some  papers — with  written  instructions  for  the  French  ;  that  he 
heard  this  alternately  spoken  of  by  Jackson,  Rowan,  &c.  and  that  he 
understood  it  was  to  Paris  that  they  were  to  be  sent. 

On  this  letter  (No.  2)  marked  with  a  large  cross,  and  contained 
within  two  covers,  in  each  of  which  there  was  a  recommendation  to 
forward  the  enclosed ;  I  will  make  one  observation  ;  I  wish  not  to 
dictate  ;  I  wish  to  raise  in  your  minds  sentiments  that  will  lead  you 
to  the  truth ;  it  was  said  with  good  sense  by  the  prisoner  at  the  bar, 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  these  papers  were  to  go  to  the  French  ; 
but  see  what  was  the  recommendation  in  each  of  the  covers — it  was, 
"  to  forward  the  inclosed ;"  the  paper  was  not  to  rest  there  ;  this  is 
material  for  your  consideration,  that  is,  if  you  believe  the  paper  to  be 
the  hand-writing  of  Jackson.  Cockayne  next  proved  his  own  hand- 
writing to  the  letter  marked  A,  No.  3.  That  this  copy  was  sent  to 
the  post-office  by  the  prisoner's  directions,  and  that  Mr.  Hamilton 
took  a  press  copy  of  the  original ;  it  is  directed  A  Monsieur  Beresford, 
Basle,  Switzerland,  and  dated  Dublin  24th  April ;  it  will  be  for  you 
to  judge  whether  it  means  really  and  bond  Jide  a  lawsuit,  or  whether 
the  language  is  not  intended  to  convey  other  tilings — of  what  is 
alleged  in  the  overt  acts  laid — "  collecting  what  is  now  sent  as  a  real 
case  in  point,"  this  is  incorrectly  expressed,  if  it  is  a  law  matter  that 
is  meant — however,  the  prisoner  is  no  lawyer.  "  By  hostile  or  pacific 
means  " — that  may  be  meant  of  a  lawsuit ;  Jackson  is  a  clergyman  ; 
he  is  not  a  lawyer.  The  letter  is  signed  "  Thomas  Popkins,"  this 
furnishes   a   circumstance   for    your   consideration,    if   you   believe 


268  TRIAL   OF 

Cockayne  ;  Jackson  has  shewn  no  necessity  why  he  should  change 
his  name  in  this  country  while  conducting  a  lawsuit  for  a  friend 
abroad :  Cockayne  swears  that  this  was  a  copy  from  a  paper  in  Jack- 
son's hand- writing  ;  look  at  the  date,  it  is  the  24th  April,  and  compare 
it  with  the  day  when  the  statement  of  the  nation  was  put  into  the 
post-office.  The  next  letter  is  No.  4,  B.  it  is  in  the  prisonei-'s  hand, 
but  the  superscription  is  written  by  the  witness,  by  the  prisoner's 
direction  ;  it  is  for  you  to  consider  what  all  this  mystery  means  ;  the 
inside  directed  to  one  person — the  outside  to  another 

Mr.  Jackson. — My  lord,  there  is  really  no  mystery  in  the  case  ; 
Mr.  Stone  had  a  house  at  Oldford,  all  letters  to  him  there  were 
directed  in  his  own  name ;  all  letters  to  him  in  London,  were  by  his 
directions  to  be  sent  to  the  house  of  Lawrence  and  Co. — now,  may  I 
make  one  observation  as  to  the  other  letter,  which  your  lordship  seems 
to  think  was  something  enigmatical. 

Lord  Clonmei, — No  ; — do  not  think  that  I  say  so. 

Mr.  Jackson That  letter  has  a  postscript  mentioning  something 

about  the  birth  of  a  child  ;  your  lordship  left  it  to  the  jury  to  enquii'e 
whether  it  alluded  to  a  bond  fide  transaction  or  not :  no,  my  Lord — 
that  lady  had  been  separated  from  her  husband  for  several  years  ;  she 
had  a  child  during  that  separation,  and  I  believe  the  father  did  not 
know  the  sex  of  the  child ;  for  some  reason  best  known  to  themselves, 
they  never  corresponded.  As  explanatory  of  the  lawsuit — My  lord, 
it  is  well  known  that  Mr.  Beresford  was  married  to  the  sister  of 
Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  and  conceiving  himself  entitled  to  a 
fortune  on  the  death  of  Mrs.  Hamilton,  the  mother  of  Mr.  Rowan,  in 
right  of  his  wife,  requested  of  me  to  make  enquiries  about  it,  particu- 
larly as  he  had  written  to  the  executors  and  repreutatives  of  Mrs. 
Hamilton,  and  never  could  obtain  an  answer. 

Lord  CiiONMEL. — Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  Mr.  Jackson  ;  I  wish, 
if  what  he  has  said  can  be  of  any  use,  that  there  had  been  evidence  of 
it.  This  letter  will  also  be  for  your  consideration,  whether  it  be 
written  bond  fide — whether  the  opinions  mentioned  be  legal  opinions. 
No.  5,  C.  is  enclosed  within  two  covers  directed  in  witness  Cockayne's 
hand — [the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  read  this  paper  by  his  lordship's 
order.]  No.  6,  is  a  duplicate  of  No.  5,  the  witness  told  you  it  is  by 
desire  of  Jackson  all  in  his,  the  witness's,  hand-writing.  Mr.  De 
Joncourt  proved  that  he  had  orders  to  intercept  these  letters,  and  that 
he  did  so ;  he  found  them  on  the  24th  April,  and  gave  them  to  Mr. 
Hamilton. 

Cockayne  was  then  cross-examined ;  but  before  I  come  to  that,  I 
shall  make  one  observation  on  his  direct  examination  :  he  sweai's 
he  directed  these  letters  by  Jackson's  desire  ;  you  see  what  they  were 
— they  were  transcripts  ;  they  corresponded  with  the  papers  found  on 
Ml".  Jackson's  table  in  his  lodgings,  which  was  evidence  of  his  posses- 
sion ;  I  say,  then,  as  to  these  papers,  of  which  there  appears  to  have 
been  four,  if  you  believe  that  two  of  them  were  sent  by  the  direction 
of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar — that  he  knew  their  contents,  and  tliat  he 
sent  them  into  foreign  parts  for  the  purposes  stated  in  the  indictment 
— I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  (and  I  believe  my  brothers  entirely 
agree  with  me, — if  they  do,  they  will  say  so,  or  qualify  their  opinions 
as  they  may  think  proper)  that  they  are  treasonable  to  all  intents 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  269 

and  purposes,  as  tending  to  invite  a  foreign  enemy  into  this  kingdom. 
If  you  believe  that  to  have  been  the  intention  of  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  you  ought  to  find  him  guilty. 

Now,  as  to  the  objections  arising  on  the  cross-examination  of 
Cockayne.  He  was  examined  as  to  his  credit,  that  he  was  a  man  not 
io  be  believed  upon  his  oath  :  he  stated  the  circumstances  of  the 
indictment  and  prosecution  for  perjury :  you  heard  the  account  he 
gave  of  it,  and  you  are  the  proper  judges  of  his  credit. 

There  were  two  papers  found  in  the  prisoner's  possession,  in  his 
chambers  by  Carleton,  agreeing  with  the  papers  sent  to  the  post-office 
by  his  directions.  If  you  believe  they  were  put  into  the  post-office  by 
his  directions,  you  ought  to  find  him  guilty.  It  is  then  suggested 
by  his  counsel,  that  they  were  put  into  the  office  by  Cockayne,  and 
he  knew  they  were  to  be  intercepted.  I  gave  an  answer  to  that 
early : — it  was  not  from  the  knowledge,  or  intention  of  Cockayne, 
that  you  are  to  judge,  but  from  the  knowledge  or  intention  of  Jackson 
himself.  The  question  is,  whether  you  believe  that  they  were  sent 
to  the  post-office  by  Jackson,  with  the  intention  I  have  described. 
But  if  you  believe,  either  that  Jackson  did  not  know  the  contents  of 
the  letters,  or  that  he  did  not  send  them,  or  that  they  were  not  directed 
by  his  advice  or  request — if  you  believe,  which  is  within  possibility, 
that  this  was  all  a  scheme  and  a  plan  of  Cockayne  to  bring  the 
prisoner  into  this  situation,  then  you  ought  to  acquit  him.  It  is 
possible  that  Cockayne  might  have  contrived  this  scheme,  abominable 
as  it  would  be,  to  entrap  Jackson,  for  some  bad  or  wicked  purpose, 
to  take  away  Jackson's  life,  and  might  have  written  the  body  and 
superscriptions  of  the  papers  for  that  purpose.  If  you  believe  that, 
you  can  have  no  hesitation  in  acquitting  Jackson.  And  if  your 
minds  are  suspended  in  such  a  degree  of  doubt,  that  you  cannot, 
balancing  one  supposition  with  another,  satisfy  yourself,  you  will 
according  to  the  benignity  of  the  law,  lean  in  favour  of  life,  and 
acquit  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Jackson — My  lord,  will  your  lordship  give  me  leave  to  men- 
tion another  thing  ? 

Lord  Clonmel. — Yes,  go  on. 

Mr.  Jackson. — There  is  another  thing  within  the  power  of  possi- 
bility— that  is,  that  supposing  the  fact  to  be  as  Cockayne  has  stated, 
it  is  within  the  power  of  possibility,  that  one  letter,  which  prima  Jhcie 
was  to  go  to  Amsterdam,  then  at  war  with  France ;  and  the  other  to 
Hamburgh,  a  neutral  power.  There  is  a  possibility  that  they  were 
not  to  go  any  farther  than  those  places  ;  for  there  is  no  evidence  that 
they  were  to  be  sent  to  France. 

Lord  Clonmel. — I  thought  I  had  stated  it  more  favourably  for 
you  than  you  do  for  yourself.  I  stated,  that  the  jury  must  believe, 
that  these  letters  were  to  go  fuither,  and  were  to  be  delivered  to 
French  persons,  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  them  to  invade  this 
kingdom 

Mr.  Jackson. — There  is  another  circumstance  I  must  mention.  I 
am  afraid  I  shall  tire  your  lordship. 

Lord  Clonmel — No,  sir,  go  on : — nothing  can  tire  me  upon  this 
occasion. 

Mr.  Jackson. — There  is  a  circumstance  which  has  been  stated  to 


270  TRIAL,  OF 

be  very  material ;  the  cross  on  tlie  inside  envelope  of  these  two  letters. 
Now,  it  is  usual,  in  the  greatest  mercantile  houses  on  the  continent, 
at  Hamburgh  and  other  places,  where  letters  are  intended  not  to  be 
opened  by  the  clerks,  but  by  the  principals  only,  to  mark  them  with  a 
cross,  and  other  symbols,  to  denote  such  intention. 

Lord  Clonmel, — Of  that  there  is  no  evidence.  The  jury  will 
make  their  observation  upon  what  you  have  said.  The  next  evidence 
was  Sackville  Hamilton.  (His  lordship  then  recapitulated  Mr. 
Hamilton's  testimony,  and  that  of  the  other  witnesses  ;  on  his  observing 
on  parts  of  the  letter  B,  No.  1 ,  particularly  the  words — "  I  am  glad 
to  tind  that  the  patterns  I  sent  have  reached  the  persons  for  whom 
they  were  intended.  The  state  of  manufactures  in  England  which 
your  friend  drew  out  is  very  just.") 

Mr.  Jackson. — There  is  not  anything  surprising  that  a  person 
corresponding  with  Stone,  should  correspond  on  matters  of  trade  and 
manufactures  ;  he  is  extremely  eminent  in  that  way ;  in  particular, 
he  has  lately  constructed  a  very  large  stamp  engine. 

(On  Lord  Clonmel's  making  further  observation  on  the  signature 
of  Thomas  Popkins.) 

Mr.  Jackson — I  think  I  can  easily  explain  that.  I  left  England 
some  years  ago,  and  became  involved  in  difficulties  which  were  not 
over  when  I  returned — I  applied  to  Mr.  Cockayne  to  arrange  my 
aifairs  ;  in  the  meantime,  I  lived  in  obscurity,  and  in  order  to  conceal 
myself  the  more  effectually,  I  begged  that  any  letter  to  me  might  be 
directed  under  the  name  of  Thomas  Popkins  ;  but  when  I  came  to 
this  country,  not  being  apprehensive  of  any  personal  danger,  I  went 
by  my  own  name  ;  and  I  was  a  man  of  as  much  publicity  as  any  in 
town.  Another  thing — there  is  no  proof  that  I  ever  was  employed 
by  France  ;  if  I  was,  and  if  they  were  such  a  generous  and  brave 
people,  as  I  am  supposed  to  have  represented  them,  they  would  at 
least  have  paid  my  debts ;  yet  I  was  under  pecuniary  difficulties — 
now,  for  a  man  to  come  here  and  attempt  an  invasion,  and  yet  not 
have  money  to  pay  his  debts,  is  to  me  as  great  a  mystery  as  any  that 
has  come  out  in  this  business. 

Lord  Clonmex,. — I  wish  the  jury  to  attend  to  Mr.  Jackson's  obser- 
vations on  the  facts  ;  but  they  cannot  attend  to  his  assertion  of  facts 
which  are  not  in  proof.  (His  lordship  then  proceeded) — Here  the 
prosecution  was  rested.  Mr.  Curran,  who  stated  the  prisoner's  case, 
and  observed  upon  the  evidence,  did  give  a  promise  to  the  court,  that 
a  witness  would  be  examined  to  contradict  Cockayne.  No  such 
witness  is  produced  : — No  witness  was  produced  by  the  prisoner. 
The  covuisel  stated  their  objections  in  point  of  law,  and  after  they  had 
gone  through  their  observations,  and  the  Prime- Serjeant  had  gone 
half  through  in  reply,  they  offered  a  witness  to  discredit  Cockayne ; 
and  to  be  sure,  if  he  were  discredited,  there  is  nothing  in  the  case. 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  if  you  do  not  believe  him  upon  his 
oath,  you  ought  to  acquit  the  prisoner.  But  the  witness  produced 
knew  nothing  pertinent  to  the  subject ;  he  knew  nothing  of  his  private 
character,  or  anything  beyond  his  practice  as  an  attorney.  I  would 
rather  let  any  further  observations  come  from  my  brethren.  However 
there  are  some  which  strike  me  as  necessary  to  be  made.  It  was 
said,  that  the  prosecutor  should  have  produced  Tone.     The  Prime 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  2^1 

Sei'jeant  answered  that — the  prisoner  might  have  produced  him. 
The  papers  sent  up  to  you  go  by  consent.  It  was  objected,  that  two 
witnesses  were  not  produced  to  the  same  overt  act,  or  one  to  one 
overt  act,  and  a  second  to  another.  I  have  given  you  my  opinion  as 
to  that.  My  brothers  will  give  you  theirs — I  think  by  the  common 
law  of  this  kingdom,  two  witnesses  are  not  necessary.  The  next 
objection  was  to  shew  that  Cockayne  was  a  person  not  to  be  believed 
upon  his  oath,  and  they  endeavoured  to  blacken  him  by  shewing  what 
they  called  the  baseness  of  his  conduct,  being  the  attorney  and  friend 
of  the  prisoner.  To  that  it  may  be  answered,  I  do  not  say  it  is  the 
case,  that  he  was  more  likely  to  know  the  circumstances.  There  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  any  grudge  or  quarrel  between  them : — but 
however  the  case  depends  so  much  upon  the  credit  of  Cockayne  that 
unless  you  do  believe  him,  you  ought  to  acquit  the  prisoner.  I  wish 
not  to  go  further  into  the  evidence  as  to  what  Carleton  said,  making 
a  second  witness,  being  of  opinion  that  a  second  witness  is  not  neces- 
sary. You,  gentlemen,  will  consider  the  whole  case,  both  upon  all 
the  evidence  which  has  been  given  and  all  the  papers,  which  will  be 
sent  up  to  you.  I  do  not  wish  to  say  much  in  the  way  of  observation  ; 
— however  it  is  my  duty  to  say  something  as  it  I'ose  upon  my  mind. 
It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  Jackson  did  not  produce  witnesses. 
He  was  arrested  in  April  1794.  He  has  had  the  same  opportunity  of 
preparing  for  his  defence  as  every  other  prisoner,  and  no  person  has 
been  produced. 

Mr.  Jackson. — My  lord,  the  last  time  the  trial  was  to  come  on,  the 
Crown  put  it  off  on  account  of  the  absence  of  Cockayne.  I  had  two 
witnesses  then  ;  William  Humfries  and  George  Dodwell.  The  former 
is  an  ensign  in  the  city  of  Dublin  regiment,  who  could  have  disproved 
the  declaration  of  Cockayne,  stated  by  Mr.  Curran.  Mr.  Humfries 
has  been  in  the  Isle  of  Man.  If  your  lordship  would  hear  my  agent, 
he  would  throw  light  upon  the  transaction. 

Lord  Clonmel. — I  would  wish  to  do  as  much  as  possible  for  you ; 
but  I  cannot  strain  the  law.     What  witness  would  you  examine  ? 

Mr.  Jackson. — I  had  desired  my  counsel  to  examine  my  agent.  I 
would  examine  my  agent.  I  would  examine  him  now  to  prove,  that 
Cockayne  said  he  had  papers  of  mine  in  the  morning  of  my  arrest, 
which  he  denied  upon  the  table  here. 

The  Counsel  for  the  Crown  stated  that  Cockayne  had  left  court, 
it  being  at  this  time  past  three  in  the  morning,  and  could  not  now  be 
confronted  with  any  witness  produced. 

Lord  Clonmel. — It  is  irregular  to  examine  this  witness,  who  has 
been  in  court  during  the  whole  trial,  and  heard  Mr.  Cockayne  give 
his  testimony.  If  this  man  could  have  contradicted  that  witness  he 
ought  then  to  have  mentioned  it.     However  examine  him. 

Edward  Crookshank  Keane,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Curran. 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  Cockayne  touching  any  paper 
found  upon  the  table  in  Mr.  Jackson's  room  ?  A.  I  had  ;  the  day  I 
was  employed  by  Mr.  Jackson  Mr.  Cockayne  called  upon  me,  and 
said  it  was  rather  lucky  that  the  papers  found  in  Jackson's  room,  were 
found  there.  He  said  he  was  the  friend  of  Mr.  Jackson,  and  wished 
to  give  evidence, — he  dined  at  my  house  for  that  purpose.     He  said 


272  TRIAL  OF 

he  had  these  papers  a  long  time  before  the  arrest : — ^lie  had  them  till 
twelve  o'clock  the  night  before  the  arrest,  and  that  night  he  put  them 
in  the  room  where  Mr.  Jackson  slept.  I  mentioned  this  to  the  coun- 
sel, but  did  not  wish  to  appear  as  a  witness,  and  would  not  now  but 
for  the  earnest  desire  of  the  prisoner. 

Cross-examined  by  the  Solicitor-G-eneral. 

Q.  You  called  a  witness  of  the  name  of  Humfries  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  not  know,  that  Humfries  was  gone  to  the  Isle  of  Man, 
at  the  time  you  called  him  ?  A.  If  you  press  me  for  my  belief,  I 
belive  he  was,  but  he  was  summoned  ;  I  saw  him  at  the  Quarter 
Assembly ;  he  was  served  with  the  summons  last  Tuesday,  and  at 
that  time  I  understood  he  was  not  gone. 

Q.  You  heard  the  examination  of  Cockayne  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  It  was  not  till  a  considerable  time  after,  that  he  was  called  upon 
to  be  examined  to  the  fact,  which  you  contradict?  A.  I  recollect 
that  very  well ;  but  it  was  owing  to  what  Mr.  Carleton  said  relative 
to  some  of  the  papers. 

Q.  Where  is  Theobald  Wolfe  Tone  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  he  is  within  reach  of  the  process  of  the 
court  ?     Where  is  he  ?     A.  I  believe  he  is  not  in  Dublin. 

Q.  Did  you  converse  with  him  ?  A.  I  never  saw  him  more  than 
three  or  four  times. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Hamilton  Rowan?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  he  not  escape  immediately  after  Mr.  Jackson  was  arrested  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know  the  exact  time  ;  I  believe  it  was  the  1st  of  May. 

Q.  Did  you  not  hear  the  whole  examination  of  Cockayne  ?  A. 
Not  the  whole,  for  I  was  going  back  and  forward. 

Q.  Did  you  not  hear  him  say,  that  he  had  a  letter  of  Jackson's  in 
his  possession  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Where  is  Mr.  Lewins  ?  A.  I  believe  he  is  in  England  ;  he  is 
gone  there  about  some  business  of  his  uncle,  Mr.  Braughall ;  I  believe 
the  crown  might  have  had  his  attendance  and  Mr.  Tone's  too  :  but  I 
have  heard  there  was  a  compromise  with  Mr.  Tone  by  government 
that  he  was  not  to  be  prosecuted. 

Q.  From  whom  did  you  hear  it  ?  A.  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  mention. 
I  first  heard  it  upon  a  consultation  of  barristers,  respecting  Mr. 
Jackson's  business ;  but  I  heard  it  in  such  a  manner,  that  I  believe  it. 

Q.  By  virtue  of  your  oath,  do  you  believe  that  is  the  reason  he  is 
not  prosecuted  ?     A.  I  do  believe  it. 

Q.  When  did  Lewins  go  to  England  ?     A.  Near  a  month  ago. 

Q.  Is  he  not  your  apprentice  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  not  know  from  the  indictment  that  Tone  was  a  material 
witness  ?     A.  I  cannot  say  to  that. 

Q.  Don't  you  believe  that  there  were  meetings  at  Newgate  between 
the  prisoner,  H.  Rowan,  Tone,  and  others,  which  have  been  stated  by 
Cockayne  ?     A.  I  believe  they  had  some  meetings. 

Lord  Clonmel. — This  is  not  perfectly  regular.  The  agent  is  not 
usually  received  as  a  witness  for  his  client  in  such  a  situation  as  the 
present  prisoner,  and  nothing  but  that  sort  of  leaning  for  the  accused 
in  such  a  situation  could  induce  me  to  submit.  We  have  been  going 
too  far. 


THE    BEV.    WILLIAM    JACKSON.  273 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — Gentlemen  of  the  jury — I  agree  with  my 
lord  on  the  law  of  this  case,  and  after  the  full  statement  which  you 
have  heard,  I  shall  not  trouble  you  with  any  observations  on  the 
evidence. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlaine I  am  perfectly  of  the  same  opinion 

with  my  Lord  Clonmel,  on  the  law  of  this  case ;  and  in  particular,  I 
agree  that  two  witnesses  are  not  necessary  to  prove  an  overt  act  of 
high  treason  in  Ireland — they  ai^e  necessary  in  England  by  force  of 
an  act  of  pai-liament,  which  never  was  enacted   in  this  kingdom. 
Cockayne  is  certainly  the  only  witness  to  prove  the  most  material 
facts  in  this  case ;    but  it  is  most  essential  that  you  shall  consider 
whether  his  evidence  is  or  is  not  confirmed  by  the  papers  which  have 
been  read,  one  of  which,   it  is  true,  has  been   sworn  by   Cockayne 
alone  to  be  the  hand-writing  of  tlie  prisoner,  but  two  others  have  been 
i  sworn  by  another  witness,   Mr.  Carleton,   to  have  been  found  on  the 
j  table  of  the  prisoner  at  his  bed  side,    at  the  time  he  was  taken.     If 
you  believe  that  those  two  papers,  purporting  to  be  a  statement  of  the 
affairs  of  this  kingdom,  were  found  in  the  possession  of  the  prisoner, 
i  then  you  are  to  consider  whether  the  fact  of  two  precise  counterparts 
[thereof  being  found  in  the  post-office  (as  Mr.  De  Joncourt  has  sworn) 
I  does  or  does  not  confii'm  Avhat  Cockayne  has  sworn,  as  to  this  material 
part  of  the  case,   viz.  That  those  papers  so  found  in  the  post-office 
j  were  written  by  the  direction  of  the  prisoner,   with  a  declared  inten- 
i  tion  that  they  should  be  put  into  the  post-office.     But  in  considering 
the  overt  act  in  proof  of  which  two  papers  so  found  in  the  post-office 
have  been  read,  it  is  of  the  essence  of  the  case  that  you  shall   be 
satisfied  that  this  statement  of  the  situation  of  affairs  in  Ireland  not 
only  was  sent,  or  put  into  the  post-office  by  the  directions  of  Jackson, 
but  that  his  intent  therein  was,  that  that  statement  should  be  delivered 
to  the  governing  powers  in  France,  as  is  charged  by  the  indictment. 
The  prisoner  has  observed  that  one  copy  was  directed  to  Amsterdam, 
in  a  country  then  at  war  with  France,   another   to   Hamburgh   (a 
neutral  port,)  and  therefore  you  will  consider  whether  those  state- 
ments were  intended  merely  as  information  to  the  persons  to  whom 
they  are  addressed  at  those  places,  or  whether  they  were  to  go  further 
— and  in  this  part   of  the   case  it  is  fit  that  you  should  consider  the 
paper  containing  the  directions,  sworn  by  Cockayne  to  be  in  the  hand- 
writing of  the  prisoner,  and  by  another  witness  to  have  been  found 
in  the   possession  of  Stone,   who  is  sworn  to  have  been  Jackson's 
correspondent.     And  in  determining  upon  the  intent  of  the  prisoner 
in  putting  or  causing  those  two  statements  of  the  affairs  of  Ireland  to 
be  put  into  the  post-office  (if  you  believe  he  did  so),   it  is  material  to 
consider  part  of  Cockayne's  evidence.     You  will  recollect  the  conver- 
sation   of  the  pi'isoner  with    Mr.   Hamilton    Rowan  and    Tone    at 
Newgate,  about  sending  Tone  with  written  instructions  to  be  conveyed 
to  Paris — Avhat  those   instructions    were,   Cockayne  could   not  tell, 
although  he  had  seen  the  paper  containing  them.     He  told  you  that 
Tone  at  first  agreed  to  go,   but  that  he   afterwards  retracted,  giving 
certain  reasons,  whei-eupon  Cockayne  told  you,  that  the  prisoner  gave 
encouragement  to  Doctor  Reynolds  to  go,  but  that  the  result  was, 
that  neither  went.     And  you  will  consider  whether  it  is  or  is  not  to 
be  reasonably  inferred  that  the  instructions  spoken  of  by  those  persons 

X 


274  TRIAL   OP 

at  Newgate,  were  the  same  with  those  that  were  found  (according  to 
the  evidence)  in  a  few  days  after  in  the  post-office — precise  counter- i 
parts  whereof,  are  sworn  by  Mr.  Oliver  Carleton  to  have  been  found 
on  the  prisoner's  table,  at  the  time  when  he  was  apprehended — then 
you  will  consider  whether  upon  finding,  that  neither  Tone,  nor 
Reynolds  would  go  upon  this  mission,  the  prisoner  resorted  to  the, 
post-office,  and  took  that  method  of  sending  the  instructions.  It  was 
remarked  by  the  prisoner  himself,  that  of  the  two  places,  to  which 
the  papers  containing  "  a  statement  of  Irish  affiiirs,"  were  directed, 
one  was  at  war  with  France,  and  the  other  a  neutral  port.  And  I 
agree  that  if  you  are  not  satisfied,  that  those  instructions  were 
intended  to  be  forwarded  from  one  of  those  places  to  those  who 
possessed  the  government  of  France  at  that  time,  you  cannot  make 
anything  of  this,  the  most  material  overt  act  that  is  charged  by  this 
indictment. 

At  a  quarter  before  four  o'clock  on  Friday  morning,  the  jury 
retired,  and  after  being  enclosed  about  half  an  hour,  returned  with  a 
verdict  of    GUILTY. 

Foreman. — My  lord,  I  am  directed  by  the  jury  to  recommend  the 
prisoner  to  mercy,  from  his  years  and  situation  in  life. 

The  Court. — Have  you  any  doubts  in  your  minds  with  respect  to 
the  evidence  ? 

Foreman. — Not  the  least. 

The  prisoner  was  then  remanded,  and  the  court  saying,  that  four 
days  must  intervene,  before  judgment  could  be  pronounced,  he  was 
ordered  to  be  brought  up  on  Thursday,  April  30th. 

Thursday,  April  30,   1795. 

This  day  Mr.  Jackson  was  brought  up  for  judgment. 

Clerk  of  the  Crown Gaoler,  set  the  Rev.  William  Jackson  to 

the  bar. 

Hold  up  your  right  hand. 

Mr.  Jackson  accordingly  held  up  his  right  hand. 

Then  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  proceeded  to  read  the  indictment. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — My  lords,  Mr.  Curran  is  not  yet  come,  but  any 
gentleman,  as  amicus  curicB  may  suggest  to  the  court.  It  is  so  ruled. 
It  is  Mr.  Curran's  wish  that  the  caption  may  be  read,  as  well  as  the 
other  parts  of  the  indictment.  It  is  Mr.  Curran's  wish  it  should  be 
read,  it  is  not  a  suggestion  of  mine. 

Lord  Clonmel. — From  the  prisoner's  apparent  ill  state  of  health, 
if  any  advantage  is  to  be  taken  from  reading  the  indictment,  I  should 
be  glad  it  may  be  read  through.  But  seeing  his  ill  state  of  health, 
I  would  not  wish  to  encrease  his  labour  by  Avaiting.     But  do  as  you 

please. 

Mr.  M'Nally My  lord,  let  the  clerk  of  the  crown  read  three  or 

four  lines. 

Court. — Do  so. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — My  lords,  by  the  statute  of  Geo.  II.  in  this  country, 
founded  on  the  statutes  of  "Wm.  and  Anne  in  England,  regulating  trials 
of  hi<^h  treason,  the  prisoner  charged  Avith  that  offence  is  entitled  to 
a  copy  of  the  indictment.  It  has  been  ruled  that  that  includes  the 
caption,  and  it  is  also  ruled,  that  if  the  prisoner  does  not  avail  himself 


THE    REV.    WILLIAM    JACKSON.  275 

of  the  objection  previous  to  the  plea  pleaded,  he  loses  the  benefit  of 
it.  Now,  my  lords,  this  gentleman  was  served  with  a  copy  of  the 
indictment  in  the  usual  time,  but  there  was  no  caption  annexed  to  the 
copy  that  was  served  on  him,  but  as  it  has  not  been  usual  in  cases  of 
felony  to  make  up  the  caption  till  after  the  conviction,  it  is  possible, 
that  there  may  not  be  any  caption  in  this  indictment.  I  wish  Mr. 
Jackson  may  be  convinced  whether  there  is  any  caption  on  the  record 
or  not.  If  there  had  been  such,  in  a  former  stage  of  the  prosecution, 
the  smallest  variance  between  that  and  the  indictment  would  be  a 
good  ground  of  objection.  It  is  the  prisoner's  wish  to  see  that  the 
caption  is  on  the  record. 

Lord  Clonmel I  see  nothing  in  the  objection.     You  should  have 

had  a  copy  of  the  whole  record  if  you  had  applied  before. 

Clerk  of  the  Crown — The  record  is  not  made  up,  and  the 
caption  not  being  part  of  the  indictment,  does  not  appear  until  the 
indictment  is  put  upon  the  record. 

Lord  Clonmel. — As  you  are  circumstanced,  you  cannot  take 
advantage  of  it. 

Mr.  M'Nally — The  prisoner  then  demands  to  know  whether 
there  be  a  caption  on  the  record. 

Lord  Clonmel. — I  wish  the  counsel  assigned  Mr.  Jackson  would 
appear. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — I  wish  so  too,  my  lord,  for  feeling  as  I  do  at 
i:>resent,  I  am  little  able  to  go  on. 

[The  court  waiting  some  time  for  the  counsel  for  the  crown,  Mr. 
Curran  came  in,  in  the  interval.] 

Loi'd  Clonmel — If  there  be  nobody  to  pray  judgment  on  this 
man  he  must  be  remanded. 

Mr.  Curran My  lords,  I  conceive  that  if  the  prisoner  thinks 

he  has  reason  to  make  any  motion  in  arrest  of  judgment,  that  this  is 
the  time. 

Lord  Clonmel. — The  fii*st  step  in  such  a  business  is  for  the 
Attorney  or  Solicitor- General,  or  some  other  of  the  King's  servants 
to  pray  judgment  on  the  pei'son  who  is  called  up  :  that  was  the  case 
of  Dr.  Hensey,  and  several  other  cases  in  the  state  ti-ials, 

INIr.  Curran. — I  speak  not  of  the  gentlemen  conducting  the 
prosecution  ;  I  speak  merely  as  between  the  prisoner,  the  court  and 
the  record  ;  I  only  mean  that  whenever  it  shall  be  the  pleasure  of  the 
court  to  go  into  this  business,  everything  shall  continue  in  the  same 
situation  ;  that  there  shall  be  no  alteration  in  the  record. 

Lord  Clonmel. — It  may  be  a  full  answer  to  what  you  say,  that 
the  court  Avill  not  be  ancillary  to  putting  your  client  into  a  worse 
situation,  whenever  the  matter  comes  on — 

Mr.  Curran — It  is,  my  lord,  a  complete  answer. 

[Here  Mr.  Attorney- General  came  into  court  and  apologised  for 
his  absence  which  was  occasioned  by  indispensable  business  elsewhere.] 

Mr.    Attorney- General It    is  now  my  duty  to  call  on  the 

court  to  pi-onounce  judgment  on  Mr.  Jackson. 

Clerk  of  the  Crown — Set  the  Rev.  William  Jackson  forward. 
[Mr.  Jackson  was  set  forward.] 

Clerk  of  the  Crown — Hold  up  your  right  hand.     [Mr.  Jackson 


276  TRIAL  OF 

then  held  up  his  right  hand,  but  in  a  short  time  let  it  fall,  being  to  all 
appearance  in  a  very  feeble  state.] 

[Here  the  indictment  was  read.] 

Clerk  of  the  Crown. — Upon  this  indictment  you  have  been 
arraigned,  upon  your  arraignment  have  pleaded  not  guilty,  and  for 
trial  have  put  yourself  on  God  and  your  country,  which  country  hath 
found  you  guilty — what  have  you  now  to  say  why  judgment  of  death 
and  execution  thereon  should  not  be  awarded  against  you  according 
to  law  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAN I   humbly  move  that  the   whole  of  the  record  on 

which  Mr.  Attorney- General  has  prayed  judgment  be  read  over. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Mr.  Attorney- General,  you  hear  what  is  moved, 

Mr.  Attorney- General. — In  the  case  of  M'Dermott  I  recollect 
the  same  application  was  made,  and  the  court  held  them  not  entitled 
to  it. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY. — That  was  a  case  of  felony  ;  but  in  a  case  of 
treason  I  conceive  we  are  entitled. 

Mr.  Attorney-General I   do   not   see  what   difference   that 

makes  ;  the  statute  does  not  make  any. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY. — We  wish  to  have  the  whole,  the  caption  as  well 
as  the  indictment,  read  ;  in  case  of  treason,  the  prisoner  is  entitled  to 
a  copy  of  the  caption  as  well  as  of  the  indictment. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  acknowledge  they  had  a  right  to 
have  a  copy  of  the  caption  and  therefore  they  have  a  right  to  have 
it  read. 

[Clerk  of  the  Crown  read  the  caption.] 

"  Pleas  before  our  Lord  the  King,  at  the  King's  courts  of  Trinity 
term  in  the  thirty-fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  Sovereign  Lord 
George  the  Third,  by  the  Grace  of  God  of  Great  Britain,  France 
and  Ireland  King,  Defender  of  the  faith  and  soforth.  Witness  John 
Earl  of  Clonmel.  H.  and  E.  Conway.  County  of  the  city  of 
Dublin  to  wit.  Be  it  remembered,  that  on  Friday  next  after  the 
morrow  of  the  Holy  Trinity  in  this  same  term,  before  our  Lord  the 
King  in  the  King's  courts,  upon  the  oath  of  twelve  j  urors  honest  and 
lawful  men  of  the  body  of  the  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  it  is 
presented  in  manner  and  form  following,  that  is  to  say" — 

Mr.  CuRRAN Will  you  allow  us  to  look  at  the  record  ? 

Mr.  Attorney-General No,  you  have  no  right  to  it.     As  to 

the  objection  of  having  no  copy  of  the  indictment,  it  comes  too  late 
now,  after  pleading,* 

(Clerk  of  the  Crown,  by  desire  of  the  prisoner's  counsel,  read  the 
caption  again.) 

Mr.  CuRRAN I  am  one  of  the  counsel  assigned  to  the  prisoner : 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  act  does  give  him  a  right  to  have  a  copy 
of  the  whole  indictment,  served  on  him  in  due  time  before  trial,  and 
no  doubt  also,  that  has  been  considered  as  extending  not  only  to  what 
is  generally  called  the  indictment,  but  to  the  caption  also,  and  it 
appears  to  be  the  constant  usage  to  serve  the  parties  with  a  copy  of 

*  Fostci''s  Crown  Law,  230.  j 


THE  REV.   WILLIAM  JACKSON.  277 

the  caption  as  well  as  of  the  indictment  propei'ly  so  called.  I  need 
not  cite  any  authority  for  this  ;  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  third  page  of 
Foster.*  I  did  understand  that  before  I  came  into  court  the  olficer 
said  there  was  no  caption  ;  the  fact  however  is,  that  my  client  has 
never  had  any  copy  of  it. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — You  do  not  exactly  state  what  the  officer 
said  ;  he  said  the  caption  made  no  part  of  the  indictment. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — The  fact  is,  that  the  prisoner  has  had  no  copy  of 
it ;  and  of  that  fact,  if  you  think  it  necessary,  he  is  ready  to  make 
affidavit.  I  know  what  may  be  said  in  answer  to  this  objection,  so 
far  as  it  is  an  objection — Foster  does  say,  that  if  the  prisoner  pleaded 
without  a  copy  of  the  caption  he  is  too  late  afterwards  to  make  that 
objection  or  any  objection  turning  on  a  defect  in  the  copy,  for  by 
pleading  he  has  admitted  a  sufficient  copy.  Now,  my  lords,  having 
learned  that  the  prisoner  was  not  served  with  any  copy  of  the  caption, 
it  was  supposed  that  there  was  not  any,  and  therefore  it  was  thought 
improper  to  say  anything  about  the  matter  before ;  it  was  conceived 
by  the  prisoner  and  his  counsel,  and  rightly,  that  there  must  be  such 
a  record  as  on  the  entire  of  it  would  warrant  the  judgment  to  be 
pronounced  by  the  court ;  reading  this  caption,  such  as  it  is,  is  a 
surprise  on  the  prisoner  and  his  counsel ;  they  have  therefore  no 
opportunity  of  considering,  on  the  foot  of  the  caption  as  read  and  of 
which  they  had  no  copy,  whether  there  may  not  arise  an  objection 
that  might  warrant  an  ari-est  of  judgment.  One  objection  strikes  me 
on  reading  it — it  does  not  name  the  jurors  by  whom  the  bill  of  indict- 
ment is  supposed  to  have  been  found.  The  caption  of  the  indictment 
in  the  case  of  the  Rebels  in  1746  does  name  the  juiy.  If  it  should 
appear  to  the  court  that  a  man  has  been  brought  to  trial  and  convicted 
where  he  has  not  in  fact  had  the  advantages  which  the  law  gives  him 
for  his  information  and  direction,  it  would  be  for  the  court  to  consider 
whether  by  pleading  over  in  chief,  he  shall  be  conceived  to  have 
waived  those  advantages  altogether  ;  that  he  has  waived  them  in  part 
is  certainly  true  ;  he  has  waived  them  so  far  as  regards  the  correctness 
of  the  copy ;  but  whether  it  would  follow  that  his  pleading  over  is  an 
admission  that  he  had  a  copy  in  fact  served  on  him,  will  be  for  the  court 
to  consider.  Your  lordships  were  pleased  to  intimate  some  inclina- 
tion to  let  the  prisoner  be  remanded  and  brought  up  some  other  day. 

Lord  Clonmel. — All  the  court  meant  to  say  was  that  they  would 
yield  to  necessity. 

Mr.  CuRRAN I  did   not  mean   to   press  it  unless  your  lordships 

were  inclined  from  necessity  ;  but,  there  is  one  reason  rather  than  any 
other,  on  which  you  might  think  it  ought  to  be  done ;  the  prisoner 
has  been  most  violently  indisposed  all  day  ;  he  is  at  present  in  a  state 
of  body  that  renders  any  communication  between  him  and  his  counsel 
almost  impracticable ;  he  has  every  symptom  of  malady  and  disease 
about  him,  as  you  might  have  seen  when  he  was  put  forward. 

Mr.  PoNsoNBY. — The  names  of  the  grand  jurors  ought  to  be  set 
out  in  this  and  every  other  case  of  the  same  kind  ;  if  the  persons  w^ho 
!  found  this  bill  were  unqualified  to  act  as  grand  jurors,  it  is  no  indict- 
ment.    I  could  not  have   made  this   objection  before,  never  having 

*  Ibid,  p.  I,  -228,  229. 


278  TRIAL  OF 

seen  a  copy  of  the  caption ;  your  lordship  will  let  us  have  time  to 
consider  this  objection. 

Mr.  Attorney-General The  application  to  your  lordship  is  to 

remand  the  prisoner,  in  order  that  he  may  have  an  opportunity  of 
considering  the  objection  that  is  now  made.  I  am  sure,  to  indulge 
my  own  feelings,  I  should  be  happy  to  grant  what  he  desires  ;  but  it 
seems  to  me  an  application  very  needless,  and  what  will  produce  no 
fruit.  The  caption  is  a  plain  one,  and  he  has  pleaded  to  it  as  suffi- 
cient, and  has  been  tried  on  it ;  I  hope  you  will  now  put  the  gentlemen 
to  argue  their  objections,  as  the  rule  always  is  to  argue  motions  in 
arrest  of  judgment  when  they  are  made. 

Lord  Clonmel. — They  have  stated  their  reason — what  do  you  say 
as  to  the  caption  not  having  the  names  of  the  jurors? 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  say  it  is  not  necessary,  and  has  not 
been  the  practice ;  it  is  a  record  of  the  court  which  states  that  the 
jurors  for  our  lord  the  King,  have  found  a  bill  of  indictment ;  when 
it  is  read,  he  pleads  to  it  as  a  sufficient  one.  If  the  individuals  of  the 
jury  furnish  any  objection,  he  should  have  taken  advantage  of  it 
before  plea  pleaded — he  might  then  have  stated  anything  which  he 
thought  a  sufficient  objection  to  the  return  of  the  grand  jury,  or  the 
circumstances  affiicting  them — ^lie  might  in  other  stages  of  the  prose- 
cution have  availed  himself  of  that  objection.  But  though  the  names 
of  the  grand  jurors  were  placed  on  the  record,  and  a  substantial 
objection  to  every  one  of  them  as  grand  jurors,  and  even  though  there 
were  a  substantial  objection  to  the  sheriff  who  returned  the  pannel, 
after  plea  pleaded  he  could  take  no  advantage  of  such  objections ; 
because  at  the  moment  he  pleaded,  he  admitted  the  sufficiency  of  the 
persons  who  found  the  bill  and  who  returned  the  pannel ;  and  it 
would  be  strange  to  admit  that  for  error,  which,  if  on  the  face  of  the 
indictment  would  not  furnish  a  ground  of  objection,  on  which  error 
could  be  brought  or  judgment  be  reversed;  therefore  it  seems  per- 
fectly nugatory.  You  have  the  caption  taken  according  to  the  practice 
of  the  court ;  but  though  it  Avere  not,  it  is  not  necessary  it  should  j 
appear  on  the  face  of  the  record  for  the  reasons  mentioned,  and  by 
pleading  he  has  acknowledged  it  to  be  such  as  he  should  plead  to. 
His  having  pleaded  will  not  prevent  him  from  having  his  objections 
to  anything  appearing  on  the  indictment  itself.  But  he  admits  that 
it  is  well  found,  and  even  if  it  had  what  he  wants,  it  would  furnish 
no  ground  for  an  arrest  of  judgment. 

Lord    Clonmel My  brothers  wish   to   hear   if  you   have   any^j 

authorities  to  support  the  objection. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY Then  you  wish  us  to  urge  it  this  day  ? 

Lord   Clonmel Yes,  certainly.      I  believe  it  is  lenity  to  tf 

prisoner  to  dispose  of  it  as  soon  as  possible. 

Mr.  PoNSONBY. — As  to  the  practice,  I  do  not  believe  there  is  anj 
practice  upon  the  subject.  I  do  not  know  that  there  has  been  a  bill 
of  indictment  for  high  treason  in  this  court  for  upwards  of  one  hun- 
dred years  past,  therefore  as  to  the  practice,  it  would  puzzle  a  man 
elder  than  any  of  the  officers  of  the  court  to  give  any  account  of  it. 
First,  then  it  appears  from  Foster  that  the  names  of  the  grand  jurors 
were  set  out  in  the  caption.  The  Attorney-General  has  been  pleased 
to  say  that  by  pleading  we  have  cured   this  defect,  if  any  it  was. 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  279 

But  the  first  principle  of  the  criminal   law  is,  that  a  verdict  cures 
nothing. 

[Here  the   prisoner   growing  exceedingly   faint,   the   court  ordered 
the  windows  to  be  opened  that  he  should  have  free  air.] 

Mr.  PoNSONBY  continued.  The  statute  oi  jeofails  does  not  apply.  If 
it  ever  was  error,  it  is  error  still.  I  humbly  conceive,  that  you  cannot 
be  warranted  to  pi-onounce  judgment,  unless  it  appears  that  the  bill 
of  indictment  was  regularly  taken  and  returned,  as  such  bill  ought  to 
be.  That  the  names  of  the  jurors  should  be  set  out,  is  plain  for  two 
reasons,  first  that  the  prisoner  might  have  an  opportunity  to  object  to 
them,  as  not  being  qualified  to  be  grand  jurors.  Secondly,  that  he 
might  have  an  opportunity  of  objecting  to  them,  if  they  were  called 
on  the  petit  jury,  because  otherwise  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  know 
who  composed  it,  and  these  very  persons  who  found  the  bill  may  be 
put  on  the  petit  jury.  If  it  does  not  appear  on  the  record  that  all 
things  were  legally  done,  the  court  cannot  pronounce  judgment.  It 
is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  the  charges  are  sufficiently  laid  in  the 
indictment  itself.  It  is  not  any  answer  to  our  objection  to  say  that 
we  do  not  object  to  the  counts  which  charge  the  treason  ;  but  I  say 
it  is  necessaiy  that  on  the  record  itself,  as  it  stands  made  up,  all  the 
circumstances  should  appear  legally  done.  And  if  they  do  not  appear 
.  so,  the  court  cannot  pronounce  judgment.  It  is  not  merely  on  the 
:  indictment  and  verdict  that  the  court  pronounces  its  judgment ;  it  is 
on  the  whole  record.  Suppose  there  appeared  a  plain,  manifest  and 
i  uncontroverted  error  in  the  caption  of  the  indictment,  could  it  be 
argued  that  the  court  would  be  warranted  in  giving  judgment  ? 

By  this  time  the  prisoner,  having  sunk  upon  his  chair,  appeared  to 
1  be  in  a  state  of  extreme  debility. 

1      Lord  Clonmel. — If  the  prisoner  is  in  a  state  of  insensibility,  it  is 
[1  impossible  that  I  can  pronounce  the  judgment  of  the  court  upon  him. 
i  If  Foster  had  not  mentioned  a  like  instance  (the  case  of  an  old  woman 
;i  brought  up  to  the  Old  Bailey)  hvimanity  and  common  sense  would 
li  require  that  he  should  be  in  a  state  of  sensibility. 
i      Attorney-General — On  that  ground  I  have  no  objection  to  his 
'f  being  remanded;  it  was  on  the  other  ground  that  I  objected. 
;      Mr.  CuRRAN — Your  Lordship  did  the  same  in  the  case  of  the 
Walshes,  father  and  son. 
Lord  Clonmel. — I  did. 

[Here  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  read  the  caption  again.] 

Mr.  PoNSONBY. — It  does  not  state  that  they  were  sworn  to  try  and 
;  enquire. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — It  is,  on  their  oaths. 

Here  the  prisoner  becoming  insensible.  Doctor  Thomas  Waite,  who 
(was  present  in  court,  was  desired  to  go  into  the  dock  to  him.  He 
after  some  examination  informed  the  court  there  was  every  apprehen- 
sion he  would  go  off"  immediately. 

Mr.  Thomas  Kinsley,  who  was  in  the  jury-box,  said,  he  would 
go  down  to  him  ;  he  accordingly  went  into  the  dock,  and  in  a  short 
time  informed  the  court,  that  the  prisoner  was  certainly  dying. 

The  court  ordered  Mr.  Kinsley  to  be  sworn. 


280  TRIAL   OF 

He  was  sworn  accoi'dingly. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Are  you  in  any  profession  ? 

Mr.  Kinsley. — I  am  an  apothecary  and  di'uggist. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Can  you  say  you  understand  your  profession 
sufficiently,  so  as  to  speak  of  the  state  of  the  prisoner  ? 

Mr.  Kinsley. — I  can.  I  think  him  verging  to  eternity ;  he  has 
every  symptom  of  death  about  him. 

Lord  Clonmel — Do  you  conceive  him  insensible,  or  in  that  state, 
as  to  be  able  to  hear  the  judgment,  or  what  may  be  said  for  or  against 
him. 

Mr.  Kinsley. — Quite  the  contrary.  I  do  not  think  he  can  hear  his 
judgment. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Then  he  must  be  taken  away.  Take  care  in 
sending  him  away,  that  you  do  not  any  mischief.  Let  him  be  remanded 
until  farther  orders,  and  I  believe  it  much  for  his  advantage,  as  for  all 
of  yours,  to  adjourn. 

The  sheriff  informed  the  court  that  the  prisoner  was  dead. 

Lord  Clonmel Let   an  inquisition,  and  a  respectable  one,   be 

held  on  the  body.  You  should  carefully  enquire  when  and  by  what 
means  he  died. 

The  court  then  adjourned,  and  the  body  of  the  deceased  remained 
in  the  dock,  without  being  moved  from  the  position  in  which  he  had 
died,  until  nine  o'clock  of  the  following  morning,  May  1st,  when  an 
inquisition  was  held  upon  a  view  of  the  body.  Surgeons  Hume  and 
Adrian  were  examined  ;  they  opened  the  body  and  found  near  a  pint 
of  acrid  matter  in  the  stomach,  which  was  entirely  corroded  ;  but  the 
bowels  were  not  at  all  affected,  the  matter  not  having  passed  to  them. 
Mr.  Hume  was  of  opinion,  the  matter  in  the  stomach  was  a  metallic 
poison,  that  it  caused  the  death  of  the  deceased,  and  that  no  diet  could 
have  occasioned  such  appearances  as  the  stomach  exhibited  ;  it  was 
impossible  the  deceased  could  survive,  the  matter  being  of  such  a 
mortal  nature,  as  appeared  from  the  symptoms. 

Ml'.  Gregg,  the  gaoler,  was  also  examined;  he  said  the  deceased 
was  visited  by  Mrs.  Jackson,  in  the  morning,  before  he  was  brought 
up  to  the  court^ — witness  went  into  the  room,  and  perceived  Mr. 
Jackson  much  agitated  ; — he  said  he  had  taken  some  tea  which  ahvays 
disagreed  with  him,  when  his  spirits  were  depressed  ;  immediately 
after  which  he  vomited  very  violently. 

INQUISITION  AND  VERDICT. 

County  of  Dublin,  \  An   Inquisition   indented  taken   and  held  for 
to  tvit.  J       our   Sovereign  Lord  the   King  at   the  place 

commonly  called  or  known  by  the  name  of  the  Court  of  King's  Bench, 
in  the  said  county  of  Dublin,  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the  Thirty-fifth 
Year  of  the  Reign  of  our  Sovereign  Lord  George  the  Third,  by  the 
Grace  of  God,  of  Great  Britain,  France  and  Ireland,  King  Defender 
of  the  Faith  and  soforth,  before  George  Hepenstal,  Esq.  one  of  the 
Coroners  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  for  the  said  county,  on  view 
of  the  body  of  the  Rev.  William  Jackson,  then  and  there  lying 
dead,  upon  the  oath  of  John  King,  William  Gibton,  John  Brooke, 
Christopher  Halligan,    Thomas    Saunders,    John    Plunket,    Francis 


THE  REV.  WILLIAM  JACKSON.  281 

Hammil,  Thomas  Mangan,  John  Elleiy,  James  Byefield,  John  Keane, 
and  James  Murphy,  good  and  hiwlul  men,  of  the  said  county,  duly 
chosen,  and  who  being  then  and  there  duly  sworn  and  charged  to 
enquire,  for  our  said  Lord  the  King,  when  how  and  by  what  means 
the  said  William  Jackson  came  to  his  death,  do,  upon  their  oaths,  say, 
We  find  that  the  deceased  William  Jackson  died  on  the  30th  of 
April,  in  consequence  of  some  acrid  and  mortal  matter  taken  into  his 
stomach,  but  how  or  by  whom  administered  is  to  the  Jury  unknown. 

A  paper,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy,  was  found  in  the  pocket  of 
the  deceased,  in  his  own  hand-writing. 

Turn  Thee  unto  me,  and  have  mercy  upon  me  ;  for  I  am  desolate 
and  afflicted  ! 

The  troubles  of  my  heart  are  enlarged,  O  bring  Thou  me  out  of 
my  distresses ! 

Look  upon  mine  affliction  and  my  pain ;  and  forgive  all  my  sins ! 

Consider  mine  enemies  for  they  are  many  ;  and  they  hate  me  with 
a  cruel  violence ! 

O  keep  my  Soul,  and  deliver  me.  Let  me  not  be  ashamed,  for  I 
put  my  trust  in  Thee. 


THE    DEFENDERS. 


The  following  Trials  deserve  particular  notice,  perhaps  not  more 
from  the  peculiar  popular  organization  they  develope,  than  from 
the  extraordinary  displays  of  judicial  character  by  which  they  were 
enlivened. 

The  Defenders,  at  the  period  of  these  trials,  and  most  probably 
from  the  year  1790,  had  merged  the  agrarian,  in  the  political  nature 
of  their  Association.  They  were  not,  in  the  beginning,  however, 
either  political  or  aggressive ;  they  were  a  lawless  body,  resisting  a 
body  still  more  lawless  ;  their  crimes  were  the  offspring  of  a  system 
of  oppression  pursued  untii-ingly  against  them  by  the  Peep-of-day 
Boys  of  Ulster. 

The  various  other  commotions,  which  for  years  had  disturbed  this 
country,  destroyed  its  peace,  injured  its  trade  and  manufacture,  and 
peopled  its  jails  and  gibbets,  had  causes  peculiar  to  themselves.  The 
Whiteboys,  who  commenced  their  career  of  crime  in  1759,  grew  out 
of  the  adoption,  by  the  landed  proprietors  and  farmers  in  the  south 
of  Ireland,  of  a  system  of  extensive  pasture-farming,  followed  by  the 
expulsion  of  the  tenants,  who  had  lived  by  the  labour  of  agriculture, 
from  their  small  holdings.  It  was  the  same  system  of  improvement, 
which  is  now  popularly  known  as  "  extermination,"  and  produced 
lamentable,  but  not  surprising  effects.  "  The  cottiers  "  said  the  Right 
Hon.  Charles  Grant,  in  his  speech,  April  22,  1822,  "being  tenants- 
at-will,  were  everywhere  dispossessed  of  their  scanty  holdings,  and 
large  tracts  of  grazing-land  were  set  to  the  wealthy  monopolisers, 
who,  by  feeding  cattle,  required  few  hands  and  paid  higher  rents. 
Pressed  by  need,  most  of  these  unfortunate  peasants  sought  refuge  in 
the  neighbouring  towns  for  the  sake  of  begging  that  bread  which  they 
could  no  longer  earn  ;  and  the  only  piteous  resource  of  the  affluent 
was  to  ship  off  as  many  as  would  emigrate,  to  seek  maintenance^or 
death  in  a  foreign  clime."*  This  was  a  fertile  nursery  of  crime  ;  and 
accordingly  the  authors  of  the  Whiteboy  disturbances  were  found 
abundantly  amongst  all  classes  and  all  persuasions  of  the  peasantry. 
It  was  a  society  making  rude  attempts  to  resist,  or  avenge  want ;  but 
utterly  free  from  disaffection  to  the  government. 

*  Butler  Bryan's  Practical  View  of  Ireland,  10. 


284  THE   DEFENDERS. 

Similar  causes,  the  pressiire  of  grand  jury  cess  and  of  tithes,  and 
the  demand  of  high  prices  for  the  setting  of  lands,  produced  in  suc- 
cession the  Hearts  of  Oak,  the  Hearts  of  Steel,  and  the  Right  Boys. 
Lord  Clare  accounted  for  these  unfortunate  combinations.  He  said, 
"  It  was  impossible  for  human  wretchedness  to  exceed  that  of  the 
miserable  peasantry  in  Munster ;  he  knew  that  the  unhappy  tenantry 
were  ground  to  powder  by  relentless  landlords." 

But  the  Peep-of-day  Boys,  were  an  association  of  a  different 
character,  influenced  at  one  and  the  same  time  by  bigotry  and 
avarice.  Intolerant  of  the  religion  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  and 
desirous  to  possess  their  land,  the  Peep-of-day  Boys  combined  the 
gratification  of  both  passions,  by  the  adoption  of  a  system  of  outrage 
and  robbery  against  the  persons  and  the  property  of  the  Catholic 
peasantry  of  the  north  of  Ireland.  They  were  chiefly,  if  not  entirely, 
Protestants,  who  assumed  the  sanctions  of  Protestanism  for  conduct 
abhorrent  from  the  spirit  of  all  religion.  Originally,  they  were  con- 
fined to  the  county  of  Armagh.  Their  career  commenced  in  1784, 
and  has  been  variously  described.  They  drew  upon  the  stores  of 
history,  and  found  a  precedent  in  the  Puritan  regicide's  edict,  "  to 
hell  or  to  Connaught,"  and  they  proceeded  very  systematically  to  drive 
the  Catholic  population  of  Ulster  beyond  the  Shannon.  At  the 
earliest  dawn,  they  visited  their  houses  under  the  pretence  of  seeking 
for  arms — the  common  trick  of  the  tyrant  in  Ireland  is  a  search  for 
arms — and,  even  in  the  guarded  language  of  the  advocate  of  flagella- 
tion and  pitchcaps,  "  committed  the  most  wanton  outrages,  insulting 
their  persons  and  breaking  their  fui-niture."*  But  domiciliary  visits 
soon  gave  way  to  ejectment.  Expulsion  from  farms  became  general ; 
it  was  a  proceeding  by  which  the  Protestant  wrecker,  Peep-of-day 
Boy,  and  eventually  purple  Orangeman  specially  occupied  the  relin- 
quished acres,  and  sat  down,  a  conqueror,  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  his 
invasion.  The  facts  are  undeniable ;  at  a  period  little  later  than 
these  trials,  not  less  than  7,000  Catholics  had  been  burned  out  of 
Armagh.  Plowden  adds,  that  the  "  ferocious  banditti  who  had 
expelled  them  had  been  encouraged,  connived  at,  and  protected  by 
government."  It  is  certain  the  magistrates  had  been  supine,  and  had 
given  passive  encouragement  to  the  Peep-of-day  Boys,  who  had 
changed  their  name  into  Orangemen.  The  charitable  and  christian 
portion  of  the  northern  Protestants  looked  with  horror  and  disgust 
at  the  enormities  practised  upon  the  wretched  peasantry,  and  falsely 
said  to  be  practised  under  the  sanctions  of  Pi'otestantism  ;  but  men  of 
that  class  were  not  the  majority,   nor  were  they  found  in  any  great 

Musgravc's  History,  54. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  285 

numbers  amongst  those  to  whom  was  consigned  the  guardianship  of 
the  peace.  The  magistrates — whether  from  secret  sympathy,  or  want 
of  energy,  it  matters  little — allowed  the  houses  of  the  people  to  be 
burned  or  unroofed,  and  the  people  themselves  to  be  driven,  under 
fierce  threats,  out  of  their  native  dwellings,  without  any  active  inter- 
position to  save  them. 

The  consequence  was  natural.  The  unprotected  people  sought 
protection  from  themselves.  They  felt  that  they  were  the  victims  of 
a  conspiracy  between  Guilt  and  Power — burnt  out  of  their  houses, 
shot,  or  robbed  by  the  first ;  unprotected,  unredressed  by  the  last — 
and  they  looked  to  their  own  strength  and  despair  for  that  defence 
which  the  law  refused.  And  hence  came  the  Defenders.  Their 
oppressors  were  men  of  the  lowest  rank  amongst  the  Protestants ; 
the  Defenders  were  in  the  lowest  rank  of  the  Catholics  ;  but  the 
crimes  of  neither  can,  with  justice,  be  imputed  to  the  spirit  of  their 
religion.  The  Peep-of-day  Boys  were  vulgar  men,  using  the  name 
of  religion,  as  a  mask  for  robbery  and  aggrandizement ;  the  Defenders 
were  a  society  of  affrighted  peasants,  agitated  by  despair  or  vin- 
dictiveness,  and  driven  to  wage  a  defensive  war  against  violence  and 
robbery. 

A  new  element  was  introduced  into  the  crime  and  misery  of  the 
northern  counties.  The  magistrates,  supine  before,  now  became 
fiercely  active.  The  cruelties  of  the  Peep-of-day  Boys  were  all  in 
the  right  quarter :  they  had  depopulated  the  villages  of  the  poor, 
unroofed  their  houses,  and  brought  dismay  and  sorrow  to  their 
hearths  ;  it  was  no  more  than  the  rich  man  had  done  befoi*e — but,  when 
misery  armed,  and  retributive  crime  stalked  about,  when  the  magis- 
trate's own  house  was  fired,  and  he  was  individually  in  danger,  it 
became  necessary  to  cast  aside  supineness  and  to  wake  the  most  active 
energies  of  the  law.  And  accordingly  we  find  that  in  February  1796 
an  Indemnity  Bill  was  required  "for  those  persons  who  nobly  dared 
to  preserve  the  tranquillity  of  the  country,  and  who  in  quelling  tumults 
and  insurrections  had  exceeded  the  ordinary  forms  of  the  law." 

Coupled  Avith  this  bill  of  indemnity — passed  to  shelter  the  magis- 
trates, who  had  sent  the  peasantry,  in  hundreds,  on  board  transports, 
without  trial,  or  foi'm  of  law — was  introduced  an  Insurrection  Act 
for  "  the  purpose  of  preventing  insurrections,  tumults,  and  riots  by 
persons  styling  themselves  Defenders,  and  other  disorderly  persons." 
Not  a  word  of  specification  beyond  the  Defenders — and  yet  it  was 
well  known  to  the  men  who  introduced  that  bill,  that  the  association 
of  Defenderism — monstrous  and  portentous  as  it  undeniably  was — 
was  but  the  antagonist  power  to  a  more  monstrous  system,  one  which 
had  desolated  several   counties  in  Ireland,  and  introduced  the  worst 


286  THE    DEFENDERS. 

disorders  by  which  the  state  could  be  endangered.  Not  one  word 
was  said  of  that  system  :  not  an  allusion  was  made  to  the  Peep-of-day 
Boys  who  flushed  with  the  victory  of  the  Diamond  had  assumed  the 
more  respectable  name  of  Orangemen.  It  was  a  specimen  of  one-sided 
legislation — too  frequent  in  Ireland — whose  fruits  are  abundant  in 
her  history.  The  Defenders  participated  with  the  Orangemen  in  the 
practices  which  disturbed  the  public  peace  ;  but  they  alone  reaped  the 
fruit  of  crime.  One  class  of  criminals  was  disposed  of  in  the  trans- 
port ship,  on  the  gallows,  or  by  the  military  ;  the  other  was  openly 
sanctioned  or  coldly  censured,  by  the  faint  or  feigned  disapprobation 
of  secret  sympathy. 

And  yet  there  were  abundant  materials  for  even-handed  justice  to 
work  upon ;  there  seldom  occurred  anything  more  criminal,  more 
detestable,  and  more  inhuman  than  the  northern  persecution.  A 
bold  and  honest  government  could  have  done  infinite  good  by  a  just 
distribution  of  the  penalties  of  the  law, — if  Avhilst  they  hunted  down 
the  oppressed  and  plundered  Defender,  they  had  not  spared  his 
plunderer  and  oppressor.  The  Report  of  the  Secret  Committee 
mentions  these  things  in  a  mitigated  shape,  reserving  its  censure  for 
the  Defenders,  and  but  slightly  alluding  to  the  provoking  cause  of 
their  crimes. 

"In  the  summer  of  1796,  the  outrages  committed  by  a  banditti, 
calling  themselves  Defenders,  in  the  counties  of  Roscommon,  Leitrim, 
Longtbrd,  Meath,  Westmeath,  and  Kildare,  together  with  a  religious 
feud  prevailing  in  the  county  of  Armagh,  induced  the  legislature  to 
pass  a  temporaiy  Act  of  Parliament,  generally  called  the  Insurrection 
Act,  by  which  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and  Council  were  enabled,  upon 
the  requisition  of  seven  magistrates  of  any  county  assembled  at  a 
sessions  of  the  peace,  to  proclaim  the  whole  or  any  part  thereof  to  be 
in  a  state  of  disturbance  ;  within  which  _  limits  this  law,  giving 
increased  powers  to  the  magistracy,  was  to  have  eflTect."* 

The  religious  feud,  thus  slightly  mentioned,  was  the  cause  of  the 
outrages  of  the  banditti,  whose  ruined  hearts  and  homes  were  their 
only  cause  of  warfare,  and  whose  rude  organization  was  supplied  by 
their  despair. 

When  this  persecution  had  proceeded  to  a  great  length,  and  the 
revengeful  fury  of  the  people  had  worked  great  crimes,  the  magis- 
trates of  Armagh  were  compelled  to  take  notice  of  the  existence  of 
the  agrarian  warfare  which  was  desolating  the  country.  A  meeting 
of  their  body  took  place  on  the  25th  December  1795,  having  been 
convened  by  Lord  Gosford  for  the  purpose  of  adopting  measures,  "  the 

Report  of  the  S(!crot  Committee  of  the  Commons,  p.  7. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  287 

most  likely  to  check  the  enormities  which  had  brought  disgrace  upon 
the  county  and  which  would  soon  reduce  it  to  the  deepest  distress."* 
This  meeting  was  only  valuable  for  Lord  Gosford's  speech — a  speech 
of  historical  import,  containing  his  undoubted  testimony  to  the 
alarming  state  to  which  the  country  had  been  reduced,  by  a  band  of 
plebeian  marauders,  unchecked  in  their  excesses  by  the  magistracy 
of  the  country. 

"  It  is,"  said  he,  "  no  secret  that  a  persecution,  accompanied  with 
all  the  circumstances  of  ferocious  cruelty,  which  have  in  all  ages 
distinguished  that  calamity,  is  now  raging  in  this  county.  Neither 
age,  nor  sex,  nor  even  acknowledged  innocence,  as  to  any  guilt  in  the 
late  disturbances  is  sufficient  to  excite  mercy  or  affijrd  protection. 
The  only  crime,  which  the  wretched  objects  of  this  ruthless  persecu- 
tion, are  charged  with,  is  a  crime  indeed  of  easy  proof :  it  is  simply 
a  profession  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,  or  an  intimate  connection 
with  a  person  professing  that  faith.  A  lawless  banditti  have  consti- 
tuted themselves  judges  of  this  new  species  of  delinquency,  and  the 
sentence  they  have  denounced  is  equally  concise  and  terrible !  It  is 
nothing  less  than  a  confiscation  of  all  property,  and  an  immediate 
banishment.  It  would  be  extremely  painful,  and  surely  unnecessary 
to  detail  the  horrors  that  attend  the  execution  of  so  rude  and  tre- 
mendous a  proscription.  A  proscription,  that  certainly  exceeds  in 
the  comparative  number  of  those  it  consigns  to  ruin  and  misery, 
every  example  that  ancient  and  modern  history  can  supply ;  for  where 
have  we  heard,  or  in  what  story  of  human  cruelties  have  we  read  of 
more  than  half  the  inhabitants  of  a  populous  country  deprived,  at  one 
blow,  of  the  means  as  well  as  of  the  fruits  of  their  industxy,  and 
driven,  in  the  midst  of  an  inclement  season,  to  seek  a  shelter  for 
themselves  and  their  helpless  families,  where  chance  may  guide  them. 
This  is  no  exaggerated  picture  of  the  horrid  scenes  now  acting  in 
this  country.  Yet  surely  it  is  sufficient  to  awaken  sentiments  of 
indignation  and  compassion  in  the  coldest  bosoms.  These  horrors 
are  now  acting  with  impunity.  The  spirit  of  impartial  justice — 
without  which,  law  is  nothing  better  than  an  instrument  of  tyranny — 
has  for  a  time  disappeared  in  the  country,  and  the  supineness  of 
Armagh  is  become  a  common  topic  of  conversation  in  eveiy  corner 
of  the  kingdom."! 

"When  such  horrors — so  vividly  painted  and  by  so  unquestionable 
a  hand — were  permitted  to  be  acted  with  impunity,  there  is  no  matter 
of   surprise  in  the  fact  that  even  this  eloquent  denunciation  was 

*  Plowden. 

t  Plowden's  History  of  Ireland  from  1801  to  1810,  introduction,  p.  33. 


288  THE  DEFENDERS. 

unproductive  of  any  good  elFect.  The  spirit  of  impartial  justice  did 
not  sleep — it  was  dead.  For  the  legislature  of  the  country  was 
equally  supine  in  applying  punishment  where  it  was  merited,  and 
equally  active  in  oppressing  and  torturing  the  already  grievously- 
tormented  victims  of  this  "  rude  and  tremendous  proscription."  In 
the  House  of  Commons,  Grattan  was,  as  might  be  expected,  more 
eloquent  in  his  details,  and  more  indignant  in  his  invective.  In 
replying  to  the  Attorney- Genei'al  (Arthur  Wolfe)  who  introduced 
the  Insurrection  Bill,  Feb.  1796,  he  said: — 

"  He  did  not  suppose  the  right  honorable  gentleman's  statement  to 
be  inflamed  but,  he  must  observe,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  was 
partial.  He  did  indeed  expatiate  very  fully  and  justly  on  the  offences 
of  the  Defenders ;  but  with  respect  to  another  description  of  insur- 
gents, whose  barbarities  had  excited  general  abhorrence,  he  had 
observed  a  complete  silence ;  he  had  proceeded  to  enumerate  the 
counties  that  were  afilicted  by  disturbances  and  he  had  omitted 
Armagh.  He  had  received  the  most  dreadful  accounts ;  that  their 
object  was  the  extermination  of  all  the  Catholics  of  that  county.  It 
was  a  persecution  conceived  in  the  bitterness  of  bigotry,  carried  on 
with  the  most  ferocious  barbarity,  by  a  banditti,  who  being  of  the 
religion  of  the  state,  had  committed  with  the  greater  audacity  and 
confidence,  the  most  horrid  murders,  and  had  proceeded  from  robbery 
and  massacre  to  extermination ;  they  had  repealed  by  their  own 
authority,  all  the  laws  lately  passed  in  favour  of  the  Catholics,  had 
established  in  the  place  of  those  laws  the  inquisition  of  a  mob, 
resembling  Lord  George  Gordon's  fanatics,  equalling  them  in  outrage, 
and  surpassing  them  far  in  perseverance  and  success." 

He  then  proceeds  to  describe  in  detail  the  circumstances  of  this 
xmparalleled  and  extraordinary  phenomenon  in  history.  The  masters 
of  families  were  compelled  to  dismiss  their  Catholic  servants  ;  the 
landlord  to  eject  his  Catholic  tenants ;  Catholic  weavers  were  seized 
as  deserters,  transmitted  to  Dublin  to  abide  their  trial  for  leaving  a 
service  they  had  never  entered. 

"  Tliose  insurgents,  who  called  themselves  Orange  Boys,  or  Pro- 
testant Boys — that  is,  a  banditti  of  murderers,  committing  massacre 
in  the  name  of  God,  and  exei'cising  despotic  power  in  the  name  of 
liberty  ;  those  insurgents  have  organized  their  rebellion,  and  have 
formed  themselves  into  a  committee,  who  sit  and  try  the  Catholic 
weavers  and  inhabitants  when  apprehended,  falsely  and  illegally,  as 
deserters  ;  this  rebellious  committee,  they  call  the  committee  of  elders, 
who,  when  the  unfortunate  Catholic  is  torn  from  his  family  and  his 
loom,  and  brought  before  them,  sit  in  judgment  upon  his  case ;  if  he 
gives  them  liquor  or  money,  they  sometimes  discharge  him ;  otherwise 


THE    DEFENDERS.  289 

they  send  him  to  a  recruiting  officer  as  a  deserter.  They  had  very 
generally  given  the  Catholics  notice  to  quit  their  farms  and  dwellings, 
which  notice  is  plastered  on  their  houses,  and  conceived  in  these  short 
but  pithy  words,  "  Go  to  hell,  Connaught  will  not  receive  you ;  fire 
and  faggot !  Will  Thresham  and  John  Thrustout."  They  followed 
these  notices  by  a  faithful  and  punctual  execution  of  the  horrid  threat, 
soon  after  visited  the  house,  robbed  the  family,  and  destx'oyed  what 
they  did  not  take  ;  and  finally,  completed  the  atrocious  persecutions, 
by  forcing  the  unfortunate  inhabitants  to  leave  their  land,  their 
dwellings,  and  their  trade,  and  travel  with  their  miserable  families, 
and  with  whatever  each  miserable  family  could  save  from  the  wreck 
of  their  houses  and  tenements,  and  take  refuge  in  villages  as  fortifi- 
cations against  invaders.  In  many  instances  this  banditti  of  perse- 
cution threw  down  the  houses  of  the  tenantry,  or  what  they  called 
racked  the  house,  so  that  the  family  must  fly  or  be  buried  in  the 
grave  of  their  own  cabin.  The  extent  of  the  murders  that  have 
been  committed  by  this  atrocious  and  rebellious  banditti,  I  have  heard ; 
but  have  not  heard  them  so  ascertained  as  to  state  them  to  the  house ; 
but  from  all  the  enquiries  I  could  make,  I  collect  that  the  Catholic 
inhabitants  of  Armagh,  have  been  actually  put  out  of  the  protection 
of  the  law ;  that  the  magistrates  have  been  supine  or  partial,  and 
that  this  horrid  banditti  has  met  with  complete  success  and  from  the 
magistracy  with  veiy  little  discouragement."* 

This  was  the  provocation,  and  these  the  injuries  by  which  the 
Catholics  of  Ulster  were  driven  into  the  ranks  of  Defenderism. 
Men,  however  rude  they  may  be,  will  often  reason  well  upon  fiimiliar 
facts.  The  Catliolic,  who  saw  his  cabin  in  flames,  and  his  wife  and 
children  ruthlessly  expelled  from  the  scenes  of  his  and  their  oldest 
attachments ;  and  who  moreover  saw  the  magistracy  in  the  country — 
the  men  of  birth,  intelligence  and  wealth — the  men  in  whom  the  law 
is  most  familiarly  recognized — not  anxious  to  anticipate  or  qviick  to 
punish  the  mean  and  heartless  agents  of  his  wrongs,  but  their  patrons 
and  sometimes  their  instigators,  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  he  trans- 
ferred his  resentments  from  the  plebeian  mob  who  yelled  around 
the  ruins  of  his  dwelling,  to  the  law  which  seemed  to  sanction  their 
crimes.  And  thus  the  Defenders  were  by  degrees  transformed  into 
a  political  society,  whose  object  was  not  alone  to  resist  actual  wrongs 
— but  to  destroy,  or  remove,  their  real  or  imagined  sources. 

They  saw  but  two  parties  in  the  country,  an  oppressive,  harsh,  and 
bad  government  on  the  one  hand  ;  and  on  the  other,  the  Society  of 
United  Irishmen  bound  together  by  a  common  tie  of  social  love,  and 

*  Grattan's  speeches,  vol.  3,  p.  "220. 


290  THE    DEFEKDERS. 

professing  to  link  all  classes  of  their  countrymen  in  one  common 
resistance  to  all  manner  of  injustice  and  oppression.  Tortured, 
transported  or  hanged  by  the  first — sued,  consoled  and  admonished 
by  the  latter,  it  was  natural  for  the  Defenders  to  be  eventually  found 
filling  the  lowest  ranks  of  the  Union.  The  reader  will  therefore  find 
them  swearing  allegiance  to  the  Convention,  and  in  their  catechisms,* 
he  will  detect  the  French  notions  of  universal  conquest  over  all  tyrants 
and  kings. 

"  To  the  Armagh  persecution,  is  the  union  of  Irishmen  most 
exceedingly  indebted.  The  persons  and  pi'operties  of  the  wretched 
Catholics  of  that  county  were  exposed  to  the  merciless  attacks  of  an 
Orange  faction  which  was  certainly  in  many  instances  uncontrouUed 
by  the  justices  of  peace,  and  claimed  to  be  in  all  supported  by 
government.  When  these  men  found  that  illegal  acts  of  magistrates 
were  indemnified  by  occasional  statutes,  and  the  courts  of  justice 
shut  against  them  by  parliamentary  bari-iers,  they  began  to  think 
they  had  no  refuge  but  in  joining  the  Union.  Their  dispositions  so 
to  do,  were  much  increased  by  finding  the  Presbyterians  of  Belfast 
especially,  step  forward  to  espouse  their  cause  and  succour  their 
distress.  "We  shall  here  remark,  once  for  all,  what  we  most  solemnly 
aver,  that  wherever  the  Orange  system  was  introduced,  particularly 
in  Catholic  counties,  it  was  uniformly  observed  that  the  numbei's  of 
United  Irishmen  increased  most  astonishingly.  The  alarm  which  an 
Orange  lodge  excited  amongst  the  Catholics  made  them  look  for  refuge 
from  a  junction  in  the  United  system  ;  and  as  their  number  Avas 
greater  than  that  of  bigoted  Protestants,  our  harvest  was  tenfold.  At 
the  same  time  that  we  mention  this  circumstance  we  must  confess 
and  most  deeply  regret  that  it  excited  a  mutual  acrimony  and  vin- 
dictive spirit,  which  was  peculiarly  opposite  to  the  interest,  and 
abhorrent  to  the  feelings  of  the  United  Irishmen,  and  has  lately 
manifested  itself  we  hear  in  outrage  of  much  horror.^" 

It  was  supposed  by  some,  and  falsely  represented  by  others,  that 
Defenderism  was  the  origin  of  the  second  organization  of  the  United 
Irishmen.  The  connection  between  these  two  bodies  of  discontent 
and  conspiracy  was  attributable  on  the  one  hand  to  the  causes  I  have 
already  stated — namely,  the  desire  naturally  felt  by  the  Defenders  to 
enlist  under  the  guidance  of  men  of  superior  i-ank  and  ability  whose 
doctrines  of  brotherly  affection  and  political  equality  so  admirably 
contrasted  with  the  harsh  and  repulsive  conduct  of  government  and 
the  gross  inhumanity  of  the   Orangemen ;  and  on  the  other  to  the 

*  See  the  indictment  in  Weldon's  case,  post. 

f  Pieces  of  Irish  History,  written  August  4th,  1798. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  291 

active  propagandism  of  the  working  men  of  the  Union  who  spared 
no  ojjportunities  to  extend  the  organization  and  numbers  of  the 
society.  So  far  was  the  latter  feeling  carried,  that  they  imagined  it 
possible  to  reconcile  tlie  two  factions — the  Peep-of-day  Boys  and 
Defenders — in  one  common  political  object.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  witli  I'egard  to  tlie  former,  any  conversions  were  effected.  Their 
atrocities  were  too  remunerative,  and  the  rich  rewards  of  depopulated 
holdings,  were  not  sacrificed  to  any  political  chimera  or  unsubstantial 
dream  of  patriotism. 

But  with  the  Defenders,  the  United  Irishmen  were  most  success- 
ful. Neilson,  Tone  and  some  others  in  July  and  August,  1792, 
exerted  themselves  to  reconcile  the  Catliolics  and  Presbyterians  in 
the  Barony  of  Kathfryland,  and  Neilson  travelled  through  the 
nortliern  counties  for  the  same  purpose.  Charles  Teeling,  some 
few  days  before  the  battle  of  the  Diamond,  proceeded  to  Armagh 
as  he  himself  says  "  to  open  some  channel  if  possible  for  a 
pacific  ai-rangement  and  to  preserve  the  county  from  a  wanton 
expcnditui-e  of  blood."*  Henry  Joy  M'Ci'acken,  one  of  the  victims 
of  court  martial  in  '98  was  also  actively  engaged  in  the  same  service. 
These  men  had  little  success  in  their  attempts  at  reconciliation,  but 
they  were  more  fortunate  in  diverting  tlie  efforts  of  the  Defenders  to 
a  cliange  in  the  government  of  tlie  country.  That  body  thus  presents 
itself  under  three  successive  aspects,  an  agrarian  defensive  society, — 
an  ignorant  insurrectionary  mob — and  finally  a  portion  of  that  great 
national  confederation  by  which  the  supremacy  of  England  was  nearly 
overthrown. 

An  idea  has  been  entertained  that  Jacobite  opinions  prevailed 
amongst  the  Defenders,  and  that  they  had  communications  with 
France  before  those  of  the  Union.  It  seems  improbable  ;  and  Mr. 
Teeling  believes  that  they  had  no  French  views  whatever.  With 
reference  to  any  mission  to  France,  it  is  in  every  way  unlikely  if  not 
impossible.  Until  their  junction  with  the  Union,  they  had,  with  few 
exceptions,  no  man  of  sufiicient  intelligence  amongst  them,  to  devise 
and  execute  so  intricate  and  difficult  a  project  as  that  of  intriguing 
with  the  authorities  of  a  foreign  state ;  nor  is  it  at  all  likely  that  so 
accurate  a  knowledge  of  the  state  of  Ireland  existed  in  France  as  to 
lead  the  ruling  powers  there  to  open  a  communication  with  so  insig- 
nificant a  body  as  the  Defenders  originally  were.  Dr.  Madden  says, 
"  it  is  difficult  to  understand  the  allusions  to  French  subjects,  in  their 
test  and  secret  pass- words  and  cabalistic  jargon,  without  supposing 
that  some  slight  tincture  of  the  old   Jacobite  principles   of   1689  was 

*  Tceling's  Observations  on  the  consequences  of  the  liattle  of  the  Diamond ; 
Dr.  Madden 's  History  of  the  United  Irishmen,  1st  vol.,  "id  series,  98. 


292  THE    DEFENDERS. 

still  mixed  up  with  their  views  and  projects."  If  so,  it  must  have 
been  a  very  indefinite  tincture  indeed — some  dim  and  ignorant  tradition 
— some  obscure  memory  of  the  mistaken  loyalty  and  the  unrepaid 
heroism  of  former  days.  And  as  far  as  their  cabalistic  jargon  is  con- 
cerned, the  vulgar  imitativeness  of  ignorance  most  naturally  adopted 
it  from  the  foolish  and  unnatural  cant  of  fraternity  which  was  used  by 
some,  even  of  the  ablest,  of  the  popular  men  of  the  day.  A  body  of 
oppressed  and  plundered  peasants  had  work  more  congenial  on  hands 
— that  of  self-defence  or  vengeance — than  any  plotting  in  connection 
with  a  miserable  defunct  dynasty.  The  United  Irishmen  had  too 
much  trouble  in  giving  a  political  character  to  Defenderism,  to  allow 
us  to  suppose  that  of  its  own  accord  it  cherished  any  hope  of  being 
able  to  assist  in  replacing  the  descendant  of  the  miserable  James — if 
such  a  descendant  existed — on  the  throne  of  England.  They  were 
not  Republicans  certainly — the  genius  of  their  religion  and  their  long 
habits  of  endurance  forbade  it — but  they  were  too  ignorant  to  under- 
stand the  question  of  disputed  succession,  and  the  question  itself  was 
utterly  removed  fi'om  their  sympathies  and  their  sufferings.  It  is 
equally  erroneous  with  that  more  modern  notion  that  the  people  of 
Ireland  expect  to  re-establish  the  titles  which  the  prescription  of 
centuries  and  half-a-dozen  confiscations  have  destroyed. 

The  vengeance  of  government  was  directed  with  peculiar  bitterness 
against  the  Defenders ;  and,  unfortunately  for  them,  their  steps  were 
tracked  by  the  same  low  and  cunning  treachery  which  destroyed  the 
United  Irishmen  and  saved  English  power  in  Ireland.  The  infamy  of 
Reynolds,  and  the  appalling  turpitude  of  Armstrong  had  their  counter- 
part in  the  vulgar  villainy  of  Lawler.*  After  the  battle  of  the  Dia- 
mond, the  magistrates  and  military  tribunals  were  active,  to  an  extra- 
ordinary degi-ee,  against  the  unsuccessful  people,  Tliirteen  hundred 
of  them  were  taken  from  the  jails  by  Lord  Carhampton  and  sent  on 
board  the  transport  vessels  without  any  form  of  trial  or  legal  process.")* 
Nor  were  the  commissions  of  Oyer  and  Terminer — though  somewhat 
more  formal — a  whit  less  certain  in  distributing  vengeance  amongst 
their  victims.  The  convictions  in  the  following  cases  were  not  such 
as  should  be  desired,  or  would  be  accepted  by  any  but  a  government 
of  hardened  despotism. 

In  most  of  the  cases,  the  prisoners  were  but  boys  ; — either  seduced 
into  the  foolish  conspiracy  by  shrewder  and  wickeder  men,  or  else  enter- 
ing upon  it  from  the  uncalculating  thoughtlessness  of  youth,  as  upon 
something  whose  mystery  had  the  delightful  charm  of  exciting  danger, 
to  recommend   it  to  the  adoption  of  possibly  uncorrupted  hearts  and 

•  See  the  Trials  of  Weldon  and  Leary.     Post. 
f  Dr.  Maddon's  History.     1  vol.  1  series,  p.  132. 


THE  DEFENDERS.  293 

giddy  heads.  When  the  mere  boyhood  of  the  prisoner  Kennedy  was 
pressed  upon  the  court,  Lord  Clonniel  took  refuge  in  a  stale  precedent 
from  Foster  in  which  a  lad  was  found  guilty  of  a  very  atrocious 
murder  and  not  executed.  Lord  Clonmel  was,  to  be  sure,  a  vulgar 
bigot  and  a  furious  partizan.  His  allusion  to  Rowan* — a  man 
altogether  superior  to  the  upstart  plebeian,  the  descendant  of  a 
Williamite  soldiei*,  who  owed  his  elevation  to  the  bench,  to  the  same 
qualities  which  enabled  him  to  disgrace  it — was  brutal  in  the  extreme. 
And  we  have  no  just  reason  to  be  surprised  at  the  inhumanity  with 
which — true  to  the  instincts  of  his  base  nature — he  hunted  these 
"  tuckered  traitors  "  to  the  gallows. 

When  all  the  sacrifices  were  complete,  and  the  convenient  juries  of 
those  days,  packed  as  they  were  with  a  skill  worthy  of  the  imitation 
of  the  corruption  of  modern  times,  had  found  their  courtly  verdicts, 
Lord  Clonmel  the  presiding  priest,  stepped  out  of  his  office,  and  not 
content  with  the  bloody  consummation  he  had  assisted  at,  indulged 
the  grand  jury  with  a  harangue,  which  the  reader  will  see  at  the  end 
of  the  trials  of  the  Defenders,  and  which  he  will  find  but  little  diffi- 
culty in  pronouncing  one  of  the  most  disgusting  speeches  ever  uttered 
from  the  Bench  of  Justice — even  by  the  accurst  lips  of  Jefferies  or  of 
Toler — a  monstrous  and  incredible  example  of  judicial  savagery  and 
falsehood.  The  unhappy  Jackson  had  but  shortly  before  perished  in 
the  very  shambles  of  justice — anticipating  the  public  butcher,  and 
baulking  hungry  vengeance — and  this  inhuman  judge,  not  sparing 
even  the  dead,  commenced  his  extra-judicial  harangue  by  designating 
him  as  a  "  self-executed  traitor " — conti*ary  to  the  finding  of  the 
inquest  which  sat  upon  the  unhappy  being,  and  which  with  pious 
reverence  to  an  oath,  refused  to  load  his  memory  with  the  charge  of 
self-murder,  but  left  the  whole  matter  in  a  state  of  charitable  doubt- 
fulness. 

The  chief — nay,  the  only  witness  in  the  trials  of  the  Defenders — 
was  William  Lawler.  He  presented  one  other  of  the  phases  in  which 
the  habitual  treachery  of  those  days  manifested  itself.  With  some, 
as  with  that  vile  miscreant  Cockayne,  it  was  affected  loyalty — with 
others,  as  with  Reynolds  it  was  love  of  money — with  others,  as  with 
the  abominable  Armstrong,  it  was  inherent  depravity,  irreclaimable 
vileness,  natural  turpitude  of  heart — with  others,  as  with  O'Brien,  it 
was  a  mixture  of  bloodthirstiness  and  avarice — and,  it  is  difficult  to 
say,  what  was  the  peculiar  moving  impulse  of  Lawler's  treachery. 
He  stood  confessed  a  ruffian  who  had  dared  to  question  the  truth  of 
our  divine  faith — a  low  sceptic  whose  vulgar  daring  presumed  to 

*  See  the  Speeches  of  the  Grand  Jury  at  the  cucl  of  the  Defenders'  Trials. 


294  THE    DEFENDERS. 

dabble  with  the  great  mysteries  of  Christianity — a  miserable  wretch 
who  accepted  comfort  from  the  appalling  doctrine  of  eternal  annihi- 
lation. He  had  attempted  murder — he  had  plotted,  devised,  concocted 
tlie  assassination  of  his  brother  in  iniquity,  Cockayne — he  was  a 
thief — he  had  consented  to  the  murder  of  the  Protestants,  and  his 
fastidiousness  only  refused  to  consent  to  the  murder  of  all  the 
Protestants !  He  was  himself  a  Protestant — yet  passed  himself  off 
amongst  the  Defenders  as  a  Catholic,  and  embraced  their  tenets  and 
their  designs  with  equal  promptitude — and  yet  what  does  Lord 
Clonmel  say  of  this  man  ?  It  is  worth  remarking — for  wonderful 
was  the  chain  of  sympathy  which  extended  from  the  witness-table 
whereon  the  corrupt  perjurer  was  appealing  to  a  Creator  he  did  not 
believe  in,  to  the  bench  on  which  the  judge  was  outraging  His  most 
beautiful  precepts.  "  My  God,  is  it  necessary  for  me  to  go  into  a 
laboured  refinement  to  satisfy  you  that  every  thing  Lawler  has  been 
saying  hitherto  is  worthy  of  credit?  It  was  alleged  that  the  verdicts 
were  founded  upon  the  extravagant  assertions  of  a  wretch  who  should 
not  be  believed.  If  there  be  any  man  who  thinks  that  way,  I  desire 
no  longer  to  discourse  Avith  him  upon  any  subject."*  He  wished  to 
hold  discourse  with  no  man,  who  would  not  accept  the  plighted  oath 
of  an  intended  murderer,  and  a  professed  Atheist !  And  this  was 
uttered,  but  a  few  minutes  after  he  had  sent  two  boys,  two  tuckered 
traitors,  to  the  gallows  upon  the  unsupported  testimony  and  the 
"  extravagant  assertions"  of  this  "  wretch!" 

But  a  still  more  exti'aordinary  exhibition  was  made  by  Lord 
Clonmel  in  this  unusual  address  to  the  Grand  Jviry.  Speaking  of 
one  of  the  Mount  Norres  family  Avho  had  distinguished  himself 
against  a  band  of  robbers  that  had  infested  the  country,  the  Chief 
Justice  said — "  With  one  sword  he  subdued  seven  and  brought  them 
to  the  gallows.  /  saw  the  man^s  picture  xoith  blood  upon  his  face  : 
glorious  picture !  and  glorious  story  to  be  told !"  There  was  one 
man  in  that  court,  whose  picture  has  been  drawn  in  our  legal  history, 
and  with  blood  enough  upon  his  face — the  humanity  of  those  who 
see  it,  will  possibly  not  pronounce  it  a  very  glorious  one. 

Having  said  so  much  on  the  Trials,  little  remains  to  be  added. 
With  the  Rebellion  of  '98,  the  Defenders  substantially  ceased  to  be 
heard  of :  the  spirit  that  animated  them  was  one  dependant  on  the 
aggression  of  others,  and  may  be  discovered  long  after  the  society 
was  forgotten.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  enlightened  nationality  of 
feeling — superior  at  the  same  time  to  the  heartless  avarice  and  ruthless 
bigotry  of  the  Orangemen,   and  the  savage  vindictiveness  and  low 

*  Lord  Clonmcl's  speech. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  295 

intolerance  of  the  Defender — daily  gaining  ground,  and  quietly 
winning  its  useful  way  amongst  the  young  men  of  Ireland,  will 
consign  to  utter  oblivion  the  feuds  and  follies  of  our  ancestors  of  every 
rank,  and  every  creed. 

Note. — The  following  passage  is  from  Seward's  Collectanea 
Politica,  3d  volume,  page  153. 

"  The  cause  of  the  animosity  which  subsisted  between  the  Peep-of- 
day  Boys  and  the  Defenders  has  been  differently  accounted  for.  The 
writer  of  a  pamphlet  under  the  name  of  Veridicus,*  attributes  it  to 
a  quarrel  which  took  place  in  the  fair  of  Portnorris,  between  two  of 
those  sectaries,  whose  personal  enmity  soon  extended  itself  to  the 
entire  body  of  each.  The  Roman  Catholics  (said  he)  assumed  the 
name  of  Defenders,  because  they  could  not  obtain  protection  from  the 
laws,  to  which  they  had  recourse  after  having  been  worsted  by  the 
Peep-of-day  Boys.  When  their  passions  became  inflamed,  they 
proceeded  to  exercise  the  most  desperate  outrage  against  each  other, 
in  the  course  of  which  many  lives  were  lost." 

This  supposition  is  very  absurd,  and  manifestly  false,  as  might  be 
expected  coming  from  Sir  R.  Musgrave,  even  in  the  character  of 
Veridicus.  Another  version  of  this  contest  about  which  I  have 
briefly  treated  in  this  notice  of  the  Defenders  is  given  in  Hayes' 
History  of  the  Rebellion. 

"  In  the  beginning  of  the  year  1795,  parties  of  contending  rioters 
denominated  Peep-of-day  Boys  and  Defenders,  disturbed  different 
parts  of  the  province  of  Ulster,  by  acts  of  violence  and  outrage 
against  each  other.  Some  say  their  animosities  originated  from  elec- 
tioneering. To  these  succeeded,  in  the  summer  of  the  same  year,  a 
description  of  public  disturbers — calling  themselves  Orangemen — 
who  now  made  their  first  appearance  in  the  county  of  Armagh. 
Their  object  appeal's  to  have  been  not  to  suffer  a  Catholic  to  remain 
within  the  limits  of  their  sphere  of  action.  They  posted  up  on  the 
doors  of  the  Catholics,  peremptory  notices  of  departure,  specifying 
the  precise  time — a  week  at  the  farthest — pretty  nearly  in  the 
following  words :  '  To  hell  or  to  Connaught  with  you,  you  bloody 
Papists,  or  if  you  are  not  gone  by  [nientioning  the  day\  we  will 
come  and  desti'oy  yourselves  and  your  properties.  We  hate  all  Papists 
here.'" 

Sir  R.  Musgrave  thus  accounts  for  the  origin  of  the  Orangemen : — 

"  As  the  Defenders  not  only  became  terrific  to  individuals  in  most 
parts  of  the  kingdom,  by  the  constant  perpetration  of  nocturnal 
robberies  and  assassination,   but  as  they  formed  a  systematic  combi- 


*  Sir  K.  Musgrave — Veridicus  was  a  singular  name  for  him  to  choose. 


296  THE    DEFENDERS. 

nation,  and  supplied  themselves  with  arms  for  the  obvious  purpose  of 
subverting  the  constitution  in  church  and  state,  and  as  they  were 
encouraged  and  directed  by  the  Catholic  committee*  and  the  United 
Irishmen — the  Protestants  of  the  Established  Church,  to  defeat  their 
malignant  designs,  found  it  necessary  to  excite  a  spirit  of  loyalty, 
which  began  to  languish  and  decline  in  a  very  alarming  degree,  and  to 
rally  round  the  Altar  and  the  Throne,  which  were  in  imminent  danger. 
The  battle  of  the  Diamond,  in  the  county  of  Armagh,  in  September, 
1795,  and  the  duplicity  and  treachery  of  the  Romanists  on  that 
occasion,  convinced  the  Protestants  that  they  would  become  an  easy 
prey  to  their  enemies,  from  the  paucity  of  their  numbers,  unless  they 
associated  for  their  defence,  particularly  as  the  fimatical  vengeance 
which  they  displayed  on  that  and  other  occasions  convinced  the 
members  of  the  Established  Church  that  they  meditated  nothing  less 
than  their  total  extirpation.  In  commemoration  of  that  victory  the 
first  Orange  Lodge  was  formed  in  the  county  of  Armagh,  on  the  21st 
September,  1795,  though  the  name  of  Orangeman  existed  some  time 
before.  They  were  merely  a  society  of  loyal  Protestants,  associated 
and  bound  together  solely  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  and 
defending  the  constitution  in  church  and  state,  as  established  by  the 
Prince  of  Orange,  at  the  glorious  Revolution,  which  they  regarded 
as  a  solemn  and  sacred  duty." 

The  last  passage  must  be  read  in  connection  with  Lord  Gosford's 
statement,  and  Grattan's  speeches  on  the  same  subject.  A  little 
examination  will  show  it  to  be  full  of  most  gross  falsehood. 

*  This  is  not  worth  refutation.     It  is  a  feeble  falsehood. 


TRIAL 

OF 

JAMES  WELDON, 

FOR 

HIGH   TREASON, 

BEFORE  THE  COURT  HOLDEN  UNDER  A  COMMISSION 

OF  OYER  AND  TERMINER  AND  GENERAL 

GAOL  DELIVERY, 

IN  AND  FOR 

THE   COUNTY  OF  THE   CITY  OF   DUBLIN, 

IN  IRELAND, 

On  MONDAY,  Dec.  21,  and  TUESDAY,  Dec.  22, 

36  Geo.  hi.  a.d.  1795. 


COMMISSION. 

Monday,  December  14,  1795. 

Mr.  Baron  George  sat  as  the  Judge  of  the  Commission,  and  was 
assisted  by  Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain  and  Mr.  Justice  Finucane. 

In  the  latter  end  of  the  month  of  August  1795,  several  persons 
were  taken  into  custody  in  the  city  of  Dublin  upon  charges  of  High 
Treason,  and  in  the  ensuing  commission  of  Oyer  and  Terminer  held 
in  October,  bills  of  indictment  were  preferred  against  them,  and  others 
not  then  in  custody,  which  were  returned  by  the  grand  jury  to  be 
true  bills. 

The  prisoners  in  custody  were  then  brought  to  the  bar  of  the  court 
for  the  purpose  of  having  counsel  and  agents  assigned.  They  were 
severally  called  upon  to  name  their  own  counsel  and  agents,  and  such 
as  they  named  were  assigned  by  the  court,  as  follows : — 


Thomas  Kennedy, 
George  Lewis, 
Patrick  Hart, 


Edward  Hanlon, 
Thomas  Cooke, 
John  Lowry. 


Counsel — Messrs.  Curran  and  M'Nally. 
Agent — Mr.  A.  Fitzgerald. 


298  TRIAL    OF 

Thomas  Murphy,      |       Michael  Maguire. 
Counsel — Messrs.  M'Nally  and  Lysaght. 
Agent — Mr.  M.  Kearney. 

Henry  Flood. 

Counsel — Messrs.  Fletcher  and  Ribgeway. 

Agent — Mr.  F.  Flood. 

In  the  interval  between  the  October  commission  and  the  present, 
a  person  of  the  name  of  James  Weldon  was  apprehended  upon  a 
charge  of  High  Treason,  and  he  together  with  such  as  had  been 
previously  in  custody,  were  served  with  copies  of  the  indictments 
and  the  captions  thereof,  five  days  before  the  first  day  of  this  com- 
mission. 

This  day  the  prisoners  who  had  been  in  custody  at  the  last  com- 
mission were  severally  arraigned  and  pleaded  Not  Guilty.* 

When  Flood  was  put  to  the  bar, 

Mr.  Ridgeway  moved  that  the  caption  of  the  indictment  might  be 
read.  The  court  ordered  it  to  be  read,  but  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown 
said,  he  had  it  not  in  court :  whereupon  it  was  sent  for,  and  being 
brought  in,  it  appeared  to  be  on  paper.  The  counsel  then  objected 
to  its  being  read,  and  moved  that  the  indictment  be  quashed  for  want 
of  a  caption.  He  said  the  caption  ought  to  make  part  of  the  record, 
and  be  annexed  to  the  indictment.  Here  it  is  neither — the  caption 
is  upon  paper,  whereas  the  records  of  this  court  are  always  upon 
parchment,  as  the  indictment  is,  and  the  caption  here  is  detached 
fi'om  the  indictment.  In  several  cases  in  the  State  Trials,  in  the 
Rebels'  case  in  Fost.  2,  and  in  Hardy's  case,  1794,  the  caption  and 
the  indictment  form  one  continued  narrative,  and  it  would  be  absurd 
if  it  were  otherwise.  In  Fost.  4,  the  caption  states,  "  the  bill  here- 
unto annexed  is  a  true  bill,"  &c. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — My  lords,  the  prisoner  has  been  served 
with  a  copy  of  the  caption  and  the  indictment,  which  is  all  that  is 
required.  He  has  no  right  to  look  into  the  record.  He  might  as 
well  object,  that  the  indictment  consisted  of  several  skins  of  parchment, 
when  it  is  too  long  to  be  contained  in  one. 

The  Clerk  of  the  Crown  said,  that  the  caption  did  make  part  of 
the  record. 

Mr.  Ridgeway. — If  the  officer  assert  as  a  fact,  what  every  man 
who  has  sight  must  be  convinced  is  not  so,  I  know  not  how  to  answer. 

The  Court  said,  that  upon  this  point,  they  must  be  satisfied  with 
the  averment  of  their  officer,  and  desired  him  to  proceed  and  read  the 
caption. 

This  was  accordingly  done,  after  which  the  indictment  was  read, 
and  the  prisoner  was  asked,  was  he  guilty,  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Ridgeway  said  he  intended  to  plead  that  there  was  no  caption 
to  the  indictment,  but  that  his  client  wished  for  his  trial  and  instructed 

*  The  prisoners  had,  upon  the  first  clay  of  the  October  commission,  presented 
petitions,  stating  that  they  were  ready  for  their  trial  and  praying  they  might  be 
tried  in  that  commission. 


THE   DEFENDERS.  299 

him  to  waive  objections  in  point  of  form,  which  he  had  thought  it  his 
duty  to  state. 

The  prisoner  then  pleaded  Not  Guilty. 

James  Weldon  was  then  put  to  the  bar  and  desired  to  name  his 
counsel ;  he  named  Mr.  Curran  and  Mr.  M'Nally,  who  were  accord- 
ingly assigned  to  him.  Immediately  after  this,  the  Clerk  of  the 
Crown  Avas  proceeding  to  arraign  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  M'Nally My  lords,  I  object  to  the  prisoner's  being  arraigned 

at  this  time  ;  I  have  only  been  assigned  this  morning  :  it  is  impossible 
I  could  be  prepared  to  advise  him  in  his  plea.  It  may  be  said,  he 
was  served  with  a  copy  of  the  indictment ;  but  I  apprehend,  counsel 
are  not  at  liberty  to  consult  with  a  prisoner  in  custody  for  treason, 
until  they  are  assigned  ;  therefore  I  submit,  he  ought  to  be  allowed 
five  days  before  he  is  called  upon  to  plead. 

Mr.  Attorney-General My  lords,  if  the  prisoner  wants  time 

to  prepare  for  his  defence,  I  have  no  objection  to  anything  that  is 
reasonable.  He  might  have  consulted  with  counsel  after  the  copy  of 
the  indictment  was  served  upon  him ;  for  although  only  two  counsel 
are  allowed  to  plead  in  court  for  him,  yet  he  may  have  as  many  to 
advise  with  as  he  pleases,  and  directions  were  given,  that  counsel 
should  be  admitted  to  him. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain In  fact  this  man  has  not  had  counsel 

assigned  till  this  morning,  and  as  the  Attorney- General  does  not  seem 
to  object,  I  think  it  would  be  better  to  postpone  his  arraignment. 

Mr.  Justice  Finucant: The  act  of  parliament  is  not  peremptory 

as  to  the  assignment  of  counsel  before  pleading. 

Mr.  Baron  George No  objection  is  made  to  allowing  the  prisoner 

time. 

Mr.  Attorney-General  then  said,  he  intended  to  have  Weldon 
tried  first,  and  therefore  aU  the  other  trials  must  be  postponed.  He 
mentioned  Saturday  for  the  arraignment  and  trial  of  Weldon,  which 
day  was  accordingly  appointed.  But  on  Friday  Mr.  Attorney- 
General  moved  to  postpone  the  trial  to  Monday,  lest  an  objection 
should  be  made,  that  the  prisoner  had  not  five  clear  days. 

Mr.  Baron  George. — There  is  another  reason  for  postponing  the 
trial ;  if  it  began  on  Saturday  it  might  last  till  Sunday,  which  might 
be  productive  of  inconvenience.  Therefore  let  the  trial  stand  for 
Monday. 

Monday,  December  21st. 

The  prisoner  being  put  to  the  bar,  Mr.  M'Nally  applied  to  have 
the  caption  read. 

Mr.  Attorney-General  opposed  this  application ;  the  prisoner 
is  not  entitled  to  have  the  caption  read,  he  has  an  attested  copy,  and 
can  avail  himself  of  that. 

Mr.  M'Nally  cited  Fost.  2,  228,  230,  to  show  that  the  caption  is 
necessary  to  assist  the  prisoner  in  pleading. 

The  Court  said  the  caption  ought  to  be  read.  The  prisoner  must 
be  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  whole  record  ;  how  can  he  know 
whether  he  has  such  a  copy  unless  the  whole  record  be  read. 

The  caption  was  accordingly  read  and  appeared  to  be  engrossed 
upon  parchment  and  annexed  to  the  indictment. 


300  TRIAL    OF 

"Be  it  remembered,  that  at  an  adjournment  of  a  commission  of 
Oyer  and  Terminer  and  general  gaol  delivery,  held  in  and  for  the 
county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  in  that  part  of  the  King's  Courts, 
Dublin,  where  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  usually  sits,  on  Monday 
the  26th  day  of  October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  God,  one  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  ninety-five,  and  in  the  thirty-sixth  year  of  the 
reign  of  our  Sovereign  Lord  George  the  Third,  King  of  Great  Britain, 
France  and  Ireland,  Defender  of  the  Faith  and  soforth,  before  "William 
Worthington,  Lord  Mayor  of  the  said  city,  Michael  Smith,  Esq.,  one 
of  the  Barons  of  his  Majesty's  Com-t  of  Exchequer  in  the  said  king- 
dom of  Ireland,  Mathias  Finucane,  Esq.,  one  of  the  Justices  of  his 
Majesty's  Court  of  Common  Pleas  in  the  said  kingdom  of  Ireland, 
and  Denis  George,  Esq.,  one  other  of  the  Barons  of  the  said  court 
of  Exchequer  in  the  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  others,  their  fellow 
Justices  and  Commissionei's  of  our  said  Loi'd  the  King,  in  and  for  the 
whole  county  of  the  said  city  of  Dublin,  assigned  by  the  letters  patent 
of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  under  the  great  seal  of  his  said  kingdom 
of  Ireland,  bearing  date  at  Dublin  the  20th  day  of  June,  in  the  first 
year  of  the  reign  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  directed  to  Patrick 
Hamilton,  Esq.,  the  then  Lord  Mayor  of  the  said  city  of  Dublin,  and 
the  Lord  Mayor  of  the  said  city  for  the  time  being,  John  Lord  Baron 
Bowes  of  Clonlyon  then  being  Chancellor  of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland,  and 
the  Chancellor  of  the  said  Lord  the  King  of  the  said  kingdom  for  the  time 
being,  Chaworth  Earl  of  Meath,  Richard  Earl  of  Ross,  Humphrey  Earl 
of  Lanesborough,  Richard  Lord  Viscount  Fitz- William,  Sir  William 
York,  then  being  Chancellor  of  the  Court  of  Exchequer  of  the  said  Lord 
the  King  of  his  said  Kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  the  Chancellor  of  the 
said  Lord  the  King  of  his  Court  of  Exchequer  for  the  time  being, 
Warden  Flood,  then  being  Chief- Justice  of  the  Court  of  Chief  Place 
of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  in  his  said  kingdom,  and  the  Chief- Justice 
of  his  said  Court  of  Chief  Place  for  the  time  being,  Richard  Rigby, 
then  Master  of  the  Rolls  in  the  said  kingdom,  and  the  Master  of  the 
Rolls  in  the  said  kingdom  for  the  time  being,  Richard  Aston,  then 
being  Chief- Justice  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  our  said  Lord 
the  King  in  the  said  kingdom  and  the  Chief-Justice  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  for  the  time  being,  Edward  Willis,  then  being  Chief 
Baron  of  the  Court  of  Exchequer  of  the  said  Lord  the  King  and  the 
Chief  Baron  of  the  said  Court  of  Exchequer,  for  the  time  being, 
Richaixl  Mountney,  then  being  second  Baron  of  the  said  Court  of 
Exchequer,  Arthur  Dawson,  then  being  third  Baron  of  the  said  Court 
of  Exchequer,  Robert  French,  then  being  second  Justice  of  the  said 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  Robert  Marsliall,  then  being  third  Justice 
of  the  said  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  Christopher  Robinson,  then  being 
second  Justice  of  the  said  Court  of  Chief  Place,  William  Scott,  then 
being  third  Justice  of  the  said  Court  of  Chief  Place  ;  and  the  Justices 
of  the  said  Courts  of  Chief  Place  and  Common  Pleas,  and  the  Barons, 
of  the  said  Court  of  Exchequer,  respectively,  for  the  time  being  and 
others  in  the  said  letters  named,  to  enquire  by  the  oaths  of  good  and 
lawful  men  of  the  said  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  and  by  otlier 
ways,  means  and  methods  whereof  the  truth  may  the  better  be  known 
as  well  within  liberties  as  without,  of  all  treasons,  misprisions  of 
treasons,  insurrections,  rebellions,   counterfeits,  clippings,  washings. 


THE    DEFENDEKS.  301 

unlawful  coinings  and  other  falsifying  of  money  of  Great  Britain  or 
other  money  current  in  the  said  kingdom  of  Ireland  by  proclamations, 
burnings  and  of  all  murders,  felonies,  manslaughters,  killings,  robberies, 
burglaries,  perjuries,  forgeries,  rapes,  unlawful  assemblies,  extortions, 
oppressions,  riots,  routs,  crimes,  contempts,  deceits,  injuries,  escapes 
and  other  offences  and  causes  whatsoever  as  well  against  the  common 
law  of  the  said  kingdom  of  Ireland,  as  against  the  form  and  effect  of 
any  statute,  act  ordinance  or  provision  theretofore  made,  ordained  or 
confirmed,  by  any  person  or  persons  within  the  said  county  of  the  city 
of  Dublin,  in  anywise  done,  committed  or  perpetrated,  or  thereafter  to 
be  done  committed  or  perpetrated,  and  of  all  accessaries  to  the  said 
offences,  and  eveiy  of  them,  within  the  said  county  of  the  city  of 
Dublin,  as  well  within  liberties  as  without,  by  whomsoever  and 
howsoever  had,  done,  perpetrated  or  committed,  by  any  person  or 
persons,  upon  any  person  or  persons,  at  any  time  howsoever,  and  in 
any  manner  whatsoever,  and  that  the  said  treasons,  and  other  the 
premises,  to  hear,  examine,  discuss,  try,  finish,  execute  and  determine 
according  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  said  kingdom  of  Ireland, 
and  to  deliver  the  gaol  of  Newgate,  in  the  county  of  the  said  city  of 
Dublin,  of  all  the  prisoners  and  malefactors  therein,  as  often  as  occa- 
sion should  require.  It  is  presented  upon  the  oath  of  twelve  good 
and  lawful  men  of  the  body  of  the  said  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin, 
whose  names  here  follow,  that  is  to  say :  Robert  PoAvell,  Daniel 
Dickenson,  James  Mills,  Andi'ew  Callage,  Hall  Lamb,  James  Blacker, 
Richard  Wilson,  William  Henry  Archer,  Joshua  Manders,  Robert 
Hanna,  Francis  Hamilton,  Mark  Bloxham,  Lewis  Hodglon,  John 
Gorman,  William  Evans,  Robert  Newell,  William  Lindsey,  William 
Berry,  John  Duncan,  William  Crombie,  William  Duncan,  Richard 
Cranfield,  Bladen  Sweny,  in  manner  and  form  here  following,  that  is 
to  say. 

County  of  the  city  of\  "  The   Jurors   of  our  Lord  the  King  upon 
Dublin,  to  icit.       J     their  oath  present  that  an  open  and  public 
war,  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign 
!  of  our  Sovereign   Lord  Geoi'ge   the  Third,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  of 
Great  Britain,   France  and  Ireland  King,  Defender  of  the  Faith  and 
soforth,  and  long  before,  was  and  ever  since  hitherto  by  land  and  by 
sea,  and  yet  is  carried  on  and  prosecuted  by  the  persons   exercising 
the  powers  of  government  in  France,  against  our  most  Serene,  Illus- 
trious, and  Excellent  Prince,  our  said  Lord  the  now  King,    and  that 
James  Weldon,  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  Yeoman,  in  the  said  county  of 
:  the  city  of   Dublin,   a   subject  of  our  said   Lord  the   King   of   his 
\  kingdom  of  Ireland,  well  knowing  the  premises  but  not  having  the 
I  fear  of  God  in  his  heart,  nor  weighing  the  duty  of  his  allegiance,  and 
I  being  moved  and  seduced  by  the  instigation  of  the  Devil,  as  a  false  traitor 
of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  his  supreme,  true,  lawful,  and  undoubted  Lord 
the  cordial  love  and  true  obedience  which  every  true  and  dutiful  subject 
of  our  said  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  tow^ards  him  our  said   Lord  the 
King  should  bear,   wholly  withdrawing   and  contriving  with   all  his 
strength,    intending    the    peace    and    common    tranquillity    of    this 
kingdom  of  Ireland  to  disturb,  and  the  government  of  our  said  Lord 
the  King  of  this  his  kingdom  of  Ireland  to  subvert,  and  our  said 
Loi'd  the   King  from  the  regal  state,  title,   honour,  power,  imperial 


302  TRIAL  OF 

crown  and  government  of  this  his  kingdom  of  L'eland  to  depose  and 
deprive,  and  our  said  Lord  the  King  to  death  and  final  destruction  to 
bring,  he  the  said  James  Weldon,  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  in  the 
thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  and  on  divers 
other  days  and  times,  as  well  before  as  after  that  day,  at  SuflTolk-street, 
in  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew,  in  the  city  of  Dublin,  and  in  the  county 
of  the  said  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms,  falsely, 
wickedly  and  traitorously  did  compass,  imagine  and  intend  the  said 
Lord  the  King,  then  and  there  his  supreme,  true  and  lawful  Lord  of 
and  from  the  royal  state,  crown,  title,  power,  and  government  of  this 
his  realm  of  Ireland  to  depose  and  wholly  deprive,  and  the  said  Lord 
the  King  to  kill  and  put  to  death,  and  that  to  fulfil  and  bring  to 
eifect  his  most  evil,  wicked  and  treasonable  imaginations  and  corn- 
passings  aforesaid,  he  the  said  James  Weldon,  as  such  false  traitor  as 
aforesaid,  and  during  the  said  war  between  our  said  Lord  the  King 
and  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France, 
to  wit,  on  the  said  20th  day  of  August,  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of  the 
reign  aforesaid,  at  Suffolk-street  aforesaid,  in  the  parish  aforesaid, 
and  in  the  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  with  force  and 
arms,  falsely,  maliciously  and  traitorously,  did  join,  imite  and  associate 
himself  to  and  with  divers  false  traitors  to  the  jurors  unknown,  and 
did  then  and  there  with  such  false  traitors  to  the  jurors  aforesaid 
unknown,  enter  into  and  become  one  of  a  party  and  society  formed 
and  associated  under  the  denomination  of  Defenders,  with  design  and 
for  the  end  and  purpose  of  aiding,  assisting  and  adhering  to  the  said 
persons  so  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  and  so 
wasrinsf  war  as  aforesaid,  against  our  said  Sovereiijn  Lord  the  nowKino^, 
in  case  they  should  invade  or  cause  to  be  invaded  this  his  kingdom 
of  Ireland  ;  and  afterwards  and  during  the  said  war  between  our 
said  Lord  the  King,  and  the  said  persons,  so  exercising  the  powers  of 
government  in  France,  and  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  on 
the  20tli  day  of  August,  in  the  said  thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign  of 
our  said  Lord  the  King,  and  on  divers  other  days,  as  well  before  as 
after  that  day,  with  force  and  arms  at  Suffolk-street  aforesaid,  in  the 
parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  and  county  of  the  said  city  of  Dublin 
aforesaid;  he  the  said  James  Weldon  as  such  false  ti'aitor  as  aforesaid, 
in  further  prosecution  of  his  treason  and  traitoi'ous  purposes  aforesaid, 
did  with  divei'S  other  false  traitors,  whose  names  are  to  the  Jurors  of 
our  said  Lord  the  King  as  yet  unknown,  then  and  there  meet  and 
assemble  to  confer,  treat  and  consult  for  and  about  the  adhei'ing  to, 
joining,  aiding  and  assisting  of  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers 
of  government  in  France  as  aforesaid,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said 
Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  in  case  they  should  invade  this  his 
kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  afterwards  to  wit,  on  the  20th  day  of 
August,  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign  aforesaid,  and  on  divers 
other  days  as  well  before  as  after  that  day,  with  force  and  arms  at 
Suffolk-street  aforesaid,  in  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the 
city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid, 
the  said  James  Weldon,  as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  in  further 
prosecution  of  his  treason  and  traitorous  purposes  aforesaid,  did  then 
and  there,  with  divers  other  false  traitors,  whose  names  to  the  said 
jurors  are  yet  unknown,  wickedly  and  traitorously  associate  and  unite 


THE    OEFENDERS.  303 

himself  to  and  witli  divers  false  traitors  unknown  to  the  jurors  afore- 
said, and  did  along  with  said  false  traitors  to  the  jurors  aforesaid 
unknown,  enter  into  and  become  one  of  a  party  and  society  united 
and  associated  under  the  denomination  of  Defenders,  with  design  and 
for  the  end  and  purpose  of  deposing,  subverting  and  overturning  the 
government  of  this  kingdom  as  by  law  established,  and  so  associated 
and  united  as  aforesaid,  did  then  and  there,  and  on  divers  other  days 
and  times  as  well  befoi'e  as  after  that  day,  meet  and  assemble,  to 
confer,  consult  and  deliberate  on  and  about  the  means  and  measures 
for  affecting  his  aforesaid  traitorous  and  nefarious  designs  and  pur- 
poses. And  afterwards  to  wit,  on  the  said  20th  day  of  August,  in 
the  said  thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign  aforesaid,  and  on  divers  other 
days  and  times,  as  well  before  as  after  that  day,  with  force  and  arms 
at  Suffolk-street  aforesaid,  in  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  and 
county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  the  said  James  Weldon  as 
such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  in  further  prosecution  of  his  treason 
and  traitorous  purposes,  did  then  and  there,  with  divers  other  false 
traitors,  whose  names  to  the  said  jurors  are  yet  unknown,  wickedly 
and  traitorously  associate  and  unite  with  divers  other  false  traitors,  to 
the  said  jurors  as  yet  unknown,  and  did  along  with  such  false  traitors 
to  the  jurors  aforesaid  unknown,  enter  into  and  become  one  of  a  party 
and  society,  united  and  associated  under  the  denomination  of 
Defenders,  with  design  and  for  the  end  and  purpose  of  subverting 
and  overturning  the  Protestant  religion  in  this  kingdom  by  law  esta- 
blished, and  so  associated  and  united  as  aforesaid,  did  then  and  there, 
on  divers  other  days  and  times  as  well  before  as  after  that  day,  meet 
and  assemble  with  divers  false  traitors,  to  the  jurors  as  yet  vmknown, 
confer,  consult  and  deliberate,  on  the  means  and  measures  for  affecting 
his  aforesaid  traitorous  and  nefarious  design  and  purposes.  And 
afterwards  to  wit,  on  the  said  20th  day  of  August,  in  the  said  thirty- 
fifth  year  of  the  reign  aforesaid,  and  on  divers  other  days  as  well 
before  as  after  that  day,  with  force  and  arms  at  Suffolk-street  afore- 
said, in  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the  city  of  Dublin 
aforesaid,  and  in  the  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  the  said 
James  Weldon  as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  in  further  prosecution 
of  his  treason  and  traitorous  purposes  aforesaid,  and  then  and  there, 
with  divers  false  traitors,  whose  names  to  the  said  jurors  are  yet 
unknown,  Avickedly  and  traitorously,  in  order  to  enlist  and  procure 
one  William  Lawler,  who  aiding  and  assisting  to  the  said  persons  so 
exercising  the  poAvers  of  government  in  France,  and  enemies  of  our 
said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  in  case  they  should  invade  or  cause 
to  be  invaded  this  his  kingdom  of  Ireland,  did  then  and  there  traitor- 
ously administer  an  unlawful  oath  to  the  said  William  Lawler,  to  the 
purport  following,  that  is  to  say, — "  I  am  concerned.  So  am  I.  With 
who?  With  the  National  Convention,  (meaning  thereby  the  National 
Convention  of  France.)  What  is  your  designs  ?  On  freedom. 
Where  is  your  designs  ?  The  foundation  of  it  is  grounded  in  a  rock. 
What  is  your  designs  ?      Cause  to  queal  all   nations,  dethrone  all 

gs,  (meaning  thereby  all  kings,)  to  plant  the  true  religion  in  the 

hearts,  be  just.  Where  did  the  cock  crow  when  the  whole  world 
heard  him  ?  In  France.  What  is  the  pass  word  ?  Eliphismatis." 
And  afterwards  to  wit,  on  the  said  20th  day  of  August,  in  the  thirty- 


304  TRIAL    OF 

fifth  year  of  the  reign  aforesaid,  and  on  divers  other  days,  as  well 
before  as  after  that  day,  with  force  and  arms  at  Suffolk-street  afore- 
said, in  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the  city  of  Dublin 
aforesaid,  and  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  the  said  James 
Weldon  as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid,  in  further  prosecution  of 
his  treason  and  traitorous  purposes  aforesaid,  did  then  and  there,  with 
divers  other  false  traitors,  whose  names  to  the  said  jurors  are  yet 
unknown,  wickedly  and  traitorously,  in  order  to  enlist,  corrupt  and 
procure  one  William  Lawler,  to  be  aiding  and  assisting  to  the  said 
persons,  so  exercising  the  power  of  government  in  France,  and 
enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  in  case  they  should 
invade,  or  cause  to  be  invaded,  this  his  kingdom  of  Ireland  ;  and  to 
bind  and  engage  himself  thereto,  did  then  and  there  traitorously 
administer  to  and  instruct  the  said  William  Lawler,  to  rehearse  and 
repeat  an  oath,  the  said  James  Weldon  having  then  and  there,  for 
that  purpose  sworn  him  the  said  William  Lawler,  a  certain  profession, 
declaration,  and  catechism  to  the  purport  following,  that  is  to  say ; 
"  I  am  concerned.  So  am  I.  With  who?  With  the  National  Con- 
vention, (meaning  thereby  the  National  Convention  of  France.) 
What  is  your  designs  ?  On  freedom.  Where  is  your  designs  ?  The 
foundation    of   it    is    grounded  in   a  rock.     What  is  your  designs  ? 

Cause  to  queal  all  nations,  and  dethrone  all gs,  (meaning  thereby 

all  kings,)  to  plant  the  true  religion  in  the  hearts — be  just.  Where 
did  the  cock  crow  when  all  the  world  heard  him?  In  France.  What 
is  the  pass  word  ?  Eliphismatis."  And  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the 
said  20th  day  of  August,  in  the  said  thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign 
aforesaid,  and  on  divers  other  days,  as  well  before  as  after  that  day, 
with  force  and  arms  at  Suffolk-street  aforesaid,  in  the  parish  of  St. 
Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  and  county  of  the 
city  of  Dublin  aforesaid ;  the  said  James  Weldon  as  such  false  traitor 
as  aforesaid,  in  further  prosecution  of  his  treason  and  traitorous  pur- 
poses aforesaid,  did  then  and  there  with  divers  other  false  traitors, 
whose  names  are  to  the  said  Jurors  as  yet  unknown  ;  wickedly  and 
traitorously  in  order  to  encourage,  corrupt,  procure  and  enlist  the  said 
William  Lawler,  to  become  one  of  a  party  and  society,  formed  for 
the  purpose  of  subverting  the  government  of  this  kingdom  of  Ireland, 
as  by  law  established  ;  did  then  and  there  traitorously  encourage, 
corrupt,  procure  and  enlist  the  said  William  Lawler  to  join  himself  to 
and  become  one  of  a  party  or  society  foi'med  and  united  for  the 
purpose  of  subverting  the  government  of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland,  as 
by  law  established.  And  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  25  th  day  of 
August,  in  the  said  thirty-fifty  year  of  the  reign  aforesaid,  and  on 
divers  other  days,  as  well  before  as  after  that  day,  with  force  and 
arms,  at  Suffolk-street  afoi'esaid,  in  the  parish  of  St.  Andrew  afore- 
said, in  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  and  in  the  county  of  the  city  of 
Dublin  aforesaid,  the  said  James  Weldon  as  such  false  traitor  as 
aforesaid,  in  further  prosecution  of  his  ti-eason  and  traitorous  purposes 
aforesaid,  did  then  and  there  with  divers  other  false  traitors  whose 
names  to  the  said  jurors  are  yet  unknown,  wickedly  and  traitorously, 
in  order  to  enlist  and  procure  one  William  LaAvler  to  be  aiding  and 
assisting  to  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France, 
and  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  in  case  they  should 


THE    DEFENDERS.  305 

iuvade  or  cause  to  be  invaded  this  his  kingdom  of  Irehmd,  did  then 
and  there,  traitorously  administer  an  unhxwful  oath  to  the  said  William 
Lawler,  to  the  purport  following,  that  is  to  say, — '  I,  William  Lawler, 
of  my  own  good  will  and  consent,  do  swear  to  be  true  to  his  Majesty 
King  George  the  Third,  whilst  I  live  under  the  same  government- 
More,  I  swear  to  be  true,  aiding  and  assistant  to  every  brother  bound 
to  me  by  this  application,  and  in  every  form  of  ailicle  from  its  first 
foundation,  January  1790 — And  in  every  amendment  hitlierto — And 
will  be  obedient  to  my  committees,  superior  commanders,  and  officers, 
in  all  lawful  proceedings  and  not  otherwise,  nor  will  I  consent  to  any 
society  or  any  brother  of  an  unlaAvfid  character,  but  will  observe  and 
obey  the  laws  and  regulations  of  my  committee  to  whom  I  belong 
determined  brother,  nor  in  any  violation  of  the  laws,  but  to  protect 
my  life  and  property,  and  the  lives  and  properties  of  my  brothers — 
And  I  will  subject  myself  to  my  committee-men  in  all  lawful  pro- 
ceedings and  not  otherwise,  during  the  reign  of  his  Majesty  King 
George  the  Third,  whilst  I  live  under  the  same  government — I 
likewise  swear  I  will  meet  when  and  where  my  committee  will  please, 
and  v/ill  spend  what  is  pleasing  to  president  and  company — I  will  not 
quarrel  nor  strike  any  person  whatsomever,  knowing  him  to  be  such, 
but  will  live  lovingly  and  friendly  with  every  one  under  that  deno- 
mination— I  will  not  rise  any  fight  or  quarrel  on  account  of  my  present 
intrus,  or  back  that  for  unto  my  brotherhood.'  *And  the  said  jurors 
of  our  said  Lord  the  King  upon  their  oath  further  present,  that  an 
open  and  public  war  on  the  said  20th  day  of  August,  in  the  thirty- 
fifth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  said  Lord  George  the  Third  and  soforth, 
and  long  before  and  ever  since  hitherto  by  land  and  by  sea,  hath  been 
and  is  carried  on  and  prosecuted  by  the  said  persons  exercising  the 
powers  of  government  in  France,  against  our  most  serene,  illustrious 
and  excellent  prince  George  the  Third,  now  king  of  Ireland,  and 
soforth.  And  tliat  the  said  James  Weldon  a  subject  of  our  said  Lord 
the  King  of  his  kingdom  of  Ireland,  Avell  knowing  the  premises,  not 
having  the  fear  of  God  in  his  heart,  nor  weighing  the  duty  of  his 
allegiance,  but  being  moved  and  seduced  by  the  instigation  of  the 
devil,  as  a  false  traitor  against  our  most  serene  and  illustrious  and 
excellent  Prince  George  the  Third,  now  King  of  Ireland,  and  soforth  ; 
and  contriving,  and  with  all  his  strength  intending  the  peace  of  this 
his  kingdom  of  Ireland  to  disturb,  and  the  government  of  this  his 
kingdom  of  Ireland  to  subvert,  he  the  said  James  Weldon,  on  the  20th 
day  of  August,  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  said  Lord 
the  now  King,  and  on  divers  other  days  and  times  as  well  before  as 
after  that  day,  with  force  and  arms  at  Suffi^lk-street  aforesaid,  in  the 
parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  in  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  and 
county  of  the  said  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  unlawfully  and  traitorously 
was  adhering  to,  aiding  and  comforting  the  persons  exercising  the 
powers  of  government  in  France,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said  Lord 
the  King  as  aforesaid,  and  that  in  the  prosecution,  performance  and 
execution  of  the  said  traitorous  adhering  of  the  said  James  Weldon 
to  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France, 
and   being   enemies   of  our   said   Lord   the   present   King,   to  wit, 

*  Second  Count. 


306  TRIALS   OF 

on  the  said  20th  day  of  August,  in  the  said  thirty-fifth  year  of  the 
reign  aforesaid,  at  Suffolk-street  aforesaid,  in  the  parish  aforesaid, 
and  in  the  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms 
falsely,  maliciously  and  traitorously  did  join,  miite  and  associate 
himself  to  and  with  divers  false  traitors  to  the  jurors  as  yet  unknown, 
and  did  then  and  there  with  such  false  traitors  to  the  jurors  aforesaid 
as  yet  unknown,  enter  into  and  become  one  of  a  party  and  society 
formed  and  associated  under  the  denomination  of  Defenders,  with 
design  and  for  the  purpose  of  aiding,  assisting  and  adhering  to  the 
said  persons  so  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  and 
so  waging  wai"  as  aforesaid  with  our  said  Sovereign  Lord  the  now 
King,  in  case  they  should  invade  or  cause  to  be  invaded  this  his 
kingdom  of  Ireland,  and  afterwards  and  durinsr  the  said  war  between 
our  said  Lord  the  King  and  the  said  persons  so  exercising  the  powers 
of  government  in  France,  and  enemies  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  on 
the  20th  day  of  August,  in  the  said  thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign  of 
our  said  Lord  the  King,  and  on  divers  other  days  as  well  before  as 
after  that  day,  with  force  and  arms  at  Suffolk-street  aforesaid,  in  the 
parish  of  St.  Andrew  aforesaid,  and  county  of  the  said  city  of  Dublin 
aforesaid,  he  the  said  James  Weldon  as  such  false  traitor  as  aforesaid, 
in  further  prosecution  of  his  treason  and  traitorous  purposes  aforesaid, 
did  with  divers  other  false  traitors  whose  names  are  to  the  jurors  of 
our  said  Lord  the  King  as  yet  unknown,  then  and  there  meet  and 
assemble  to  confer,  treat  and  consult  for  and  about  the  adhering  to, 
joining,  aiding  and  assisting  of  the  said  persons  exercising  the  powers 
of  government  in  France  as  aforesaid,  and  being  enemies  of  our  said 
Lord  the  King  as  aforesaid,  in  case  they  should  invade  or  cause  to  be 
invaded  this  his  kingdom  of  L'eland." 

The  same  overt  acts  were  stated  in  support  of  the  second  covmt, 
and  in  the  same  manner  as  set  forth  in  the  first.  The  indictment 
concluded  in  this  way — "  against  the  duty  of  the  allegiance  of  the 
said  James  TVeldon,  against  the  peace  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  liis 
crown  and  dignity,  and  against  the  form  of  the  statute  in  such  case 
made  and  provided." 

Clerk  of  the  Crown. — How  say  you,  James  Weldon,  are  you 
guilty  of  this  treason  in  manner  and  form  as  you  stand  indicted  and 
arraigned  or  not  ? 

Mr.  31'Nallt My  lords,   I  submit  to  your  lordships  that   this 

indictment  must  be  quashed,  the  caption  annexed  to  it,  being  illegal 
both  as  to  form  and  substance.  The  first  error  that  appears  upon  the 
face  of  the  caption,  is  that  it  lays  no  venue  ;  it  does  not  show  whether 
the  bill  was  foiind  by  the  grand  jury  of  the  city  or  the  county  of 
Dublin.  I  am  aware  that  by  a  statute  this  court  is  taken  to  be  in  the 
city  and  the  county.  Locally  it  is  in  the  county  of  Dublin :  artifi- 
cially it  is  in  either ;  but  the  caption  does  not  set  forth  any  county  in 
the  margin :  if  it  did,  I  admit  it  might  be  unnecessary  to  repeat  that 
county  in  the  caption  ;  but  all  that  is  stated  in  the  body  of  the  caption 
is,  "  the  place  where  King's  Bench  usually  sits,"  without  aveiTiug  it 
to  be  in  the  city  of  Dublin,  where  the  offence  is  supposed  to  be  com- 
mitted. 2dly.  The  caption  states  an  adjournment  of  a  session,  but 
does  not  state  when  the  original  session  began,  Str.  865.  2  Hawk.  362. 
3dly.  It  does  not  state  that  the  grand  jury  were  sworn  and  charged, 


THE    DEFENDERS.  307 

4  Bl.  Com.  Fost.  4.*  2  Hal.  P.  C.  167.  s.  6,  9-  The  caption  states 
that  it  is  presented  upon  the  oath  of  twelve  men  "  that  is  to  say,"  and 
it  sets  out  the  names  of  twenty-three  ;  this  is  repugnant,  for  the  latter 
part  is  contradictory  to  the  foi-mer.  4thly.  The  caption  does  not  state 
the  additions  of  the  jm-ors ;  the  precedent  in  the  appendix  to  4  Bl. 
Com.  states  the  foreman  to  be  a  baronet  and  the  rest  are  esquires. 
The  necessity  of  the  addition  is  ob^^ous  ;  it  is  to  ascertain  the  identity 
of  the  grand  juror,  for  many  objections  may  lie  against  him,  he  might 
be  an  outlaw,  convicted  of  treason  or  felony  and  consequently  disabled 
from  serving  upon  a  grand  juiy. 

Mr.  Attorxey-Gexeral,  rose  to  answer  these  objections,  but 
was  stopped  by  the  court. 

Mr.  .Justice  Chamberlain. — The  court  do  not  think  the  objections 
founded.  It  is  taken  for  granted,  that  the  caption  is  part  of  the 
indictment :  it  is  not ; — it  is  only  the  style  of  the  court,  and  where 
captions  have  been  quashed,  it  has  been  upon  certiorari,  or  writ  of 
error. 

The  prisoner  then  pleaded  in  abatement — "And  the  said  James 
Weldon  says,  that  he  is  not  a  yeoman,  but  a  soldier  in  his  Majesty's 
7th  regiment  of  dragoons." 

Mr.  Attornt^y-Gexerae. — I  demur  to  this  plea. 
Mr.  Justice  Chamberlaix. — Then  you  admit  that  he  is  not  a 
yeoman. 

Mr.  Attorxey-Gexeral — Is  the  plea  so,  my  lord  ?  I  had  mis- 
conceived it. 

Then  the  plea  was  read,  and  after  some  conference  among  the 
counsel  for  the  crown,  Mr.  Attorxey-Gexerae  replied,  and  averred 
"  that  the  prisoner  is  a  yeoman,  and  this  he  prayed  might  be  tried  by 
the  country."  The  counsel  for  the  prisoner  joined  the  similiter — 
"  And  the  said  James  TVeldon  doth  so  Kkewise." 
Court. — You  pray  the  usual  process. 

Counsel  on  both  sides,  said  certainly  ;  and  the  Attorx'ey-Gexerae 
prayed  that  a  jury  might  be  returned  instanter. 

It  then  became  a  question,  to  what  time  the  plea  related  ? — whether 
it  meant,  that  he  was  a  soldier  at  the  time  when  the  plea  was  put  in 
— or  at  the  time  when  the  indictment  was  found  ? 

Mr.  CrRRAX. — The  meaning  of  the  plea  is,  that  the  prisoner  was 
never  a  yeoman,  either  at  the  time  of  his  arrest,  the  time  the  indict- 
ment was  taken,  or  at  this  day.  It  is  a  sort  of  objection  to  the 
identity  that  he  is  not  the  man  presented  by  the  grand  inquest  as  a 
yeoman,  for  he  is  a  soldier. 

A  pannel  was  then  returned  by  the  Sheriff,  and  twelve  persons 
were  sworn  to  try  the  issue,  whether  the  prisoner  be  a  yeoman. 

Mr.  At torx'ey- General Gentlemen  of  the  jury — The  prisoner 

is  indicted  for  high  treason,  and  he  is  described  in  the  indictment  as 
a  yeoman,  an  issue  is  now  joined  upon  that  description  and  if  it  be 
found  for  him,  the  indictment  must  be  quashed.  The  law  requires, 
that  an  indictment  must  set  forth  what  a  party  is ;  the  prisoner  is 
described  as  a  yeoman ;  we  shall  produce  a  witness  to  show  what  he 

•  In  Townley's  Case  (18  How.  St.  Tr.  334)  the  jury  are  stated  to  hav«  been 
"  sworn  and  charged  to  enqnii-e"" 


308  TniALS    OF 

is,  and  you  will  determine  whether  he  be  a  yeoman,  or  not.  The 
objection  is  as  frivolous  as  can  be  conceived  ;  it  is  a  disgrace  to 
justice  that  such  objections  are  allowed,  and  I  say  this  to  shew  you 
that  if  there  be  any  doubt  in  the  case,  yovi  wall  lean  against  the  plea. 
What  was  the  meaning  of  the  word  yeoman  an  hundred  years  ago, 
or  what  was  the  meaning  of  the  Saxon  Avord  geomman,  is  not  now 
the  subject  of  enquiry.  We  will  shew  that  the  prisoner  is  a  soldier 
in  a  regiment  of  horse ;  and  the  woi'ds  yeoman  and  labourer  have 
been  applied  indifferently  as  sufhcient  descriptions  of  persons  in  his 
situation.  The  counsel  for  the  prisoner  may  shew  from  black  letter 
books,  what  was  the  meaning  of  the  word  yeoman  many  years  ago  ; 
but  it  is  sufficient  to  describe  a  man  to  a  common  intent,  and  in  the 
known  use  of  words  at  the  time  of  the  indictment  found.  The  word 
yeoman  is  applied  to  many  difterent  situations,  as  a  person  having 
land  and  entitled  to  serve  upon  a  jury.  If  that  be  the  appropriated 
meaning,  it  has  not  been  so  taken  lately.  There  are  yeomen  of  the 
King's  guards — so  are  the  attendants  upon  the  Lord  Lieutenant's 
person,  and  a  variety  of  others  in  different  situations.  Therefore  the 
insignificant  word  cannot  be  now  made  a  ground  of  objection,  this 
man  being  described  with  sufficient  particularity.  An  objection 
might  be  made  to  a  description  of  a  man  as  one  kind  of  artificer,  when 
in  truth  he  was  of  another,  but  the  same  objection  cannot  be  made  to 
the  words  yeoman  or  labourer. 

Tresham  Gregg,  sworn. — Examined  by  the  Prime- Serjeant. 

Q.  Are  you  gaoler  of  Newgate  ?     A.  I  am. 

Q.  Do  you  knoAv  the  prisoner  ?  A.  I  know  the  prisoner,  James 
Weldon,  since  he  was  committed  to  gaol. 

Q.  How  long  since  is  that  ?     A.  About  a  month. 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  him  ?  A.  I  asked  him,  what 
business  he  was  of.  He  said  he  was  a  breeches-maker  from  the 
county  of  Meath,  but  that  he  had  been  a  soldier  for  two  years  ;  that 
he  was  a  soldier  in  the  Black  Horse  and  was  taken  in  Cork. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Curran. 

Q.  By  virtue  of  your  oath,  do  you  know  what  a  yeoman  is?  A.  I 
do  not. 

Mr.  CuRRAN Then  you  may  go  down,   and  enquire  before  you 

come  to  prove  that  a  prisoner  is  a  yeoman. 

Here  the  evidence  closed. 

Mr.  CuRRAN Gentlemen  of  the  jury, — the  law  requires  that  there 

should  be  a  determinate  degree  of  certainty  in  the  specification,  not 
only  of  every  crime,  with  which  any  man  is  charged,  but  also  of  the 
person  charged  :  and  it  is  not  for  us  to  say,  that  any  certainty  Avhich 
may  be  required  in  favour  of  life,  or  any  objection  permitted  by  the 
law,  is  frivolous,  or  disgraceful  to  the  jurisprudence  of  the  country. 
It  is  a  known  fact,  that  the  certainty  of  description  which  has  been 
adhered  to  in  this  country,  has  been  departed  from  in  a  neighbouring 
country,  and  hundreds  of  innocent  persons  have  perished  for  want  of 
it.  This  man  is  indicted  as  a  yeoman,  and  if  you  have  any  doubt 
upon  the  case,  the  uniform  principle  of  the  law  is,  that  in  such  case 
you  should  lean  in  favour  of  the  prisoner.     But    gentlemen,  there  is 


THE    DEFENDERS.  309 

no  doubt  in  the  case  ;  your  oath  is,  to  try  whether  this  man  be  a 
yeoman.  Our  society  is  divided  into  different  degrees,  and  the 
inferior  orders  Avith  regard  to  one  another,  and  the  peers  who  are 
above  them  have  correlative  appellations.  The  name  of  yeoman  is  a 
known  and  defined  name.  It  is  not  to  black  letter  that  I  shall  refer  the 
court,  or  to  books  that  are  as  little  known  as  the  pronunciation  of  the 
word  :  but  to  the  commentaries  of  Judge  Blackstone,  who  has  Avritten 
not  many  years  ago.  1  Bl.  Com.  406 — ^"A  yeoman  is  he  that 
hath  free  land  of  forty  shillings  by  the  year ;  who  was  anciently 
thereby  qualified  to  serve  on  juries,  vote  for  knights  of  the  shire,  and 
do  any  other  act,  Avhere  the  law  requires  one,  that  is  probus  S)-  legalis 
homor  He  adds  in  the  ensuing  paragraph,  "  the  rest  of  the  com- 
monality are  tradesmen,  artificers  and  labourers ;  who  (as  well  as  all 
others)  must,  in  pursuance  of  the  statute  1  Hen.  V.  c.  5,  be  stiled  by 
the  name  and  addition  of  their  estate,  degree,  or  mystery,  and  the 
place  to  Avliich  they  belong,  or  where  they  have  been  conversant,  in 
all  original  writs  of  actions,  personal  appeals  and  indictments,  upon 
which  process  of  outlawry  may  be  awarded  ;  in  order  as  it  should 
seem,  to  prevent  any  clandestine,  or  mistaken  outlawry,  by  reducing 
to  a  specific  certainty  the  person  who  is  the  object  of  its  process." 
Thus  distinguishing  the  man  of  property  in  land,  from  those  who  earn 
money  by  trades,  as  a  tradesman  or  artificer,  who  must  be  described 
by  their  degree,  or  mystery.  From  this  respectable  authority  and  tlie 
plain  sense  of  the  case,  the  jury  will  find  for  the  prisoner.  You  are 
not  to  calculate  consequences.  If  the  man  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of 
the  objection,  you  are  sworn  to  give  it  to  him,  and  you  are  not  to 
depart  from  that  oath  upon  being  told,  that  the  objection  is  frivolous, 
or  disgraceful  to  justice. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — I  wish  that  counsel  in  speaking  to 
this  point,  would  argue,  whether  we  are  to  advise  the  jury  upon  the 
common  acceptation  of  the  word,  or  whether  we  are  bound  by  the 
strict  letter  of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Baron  George. — Shakspeare  seems  to  have  considered  a 
soldier  synonimous  with  yeoman,  and  Dr.  Johnson,  in  his  second 
definition  of  the  word,  says,  "  it  seems  to  have  been  anciently  a  kind 
of  ceremonious  title  given  to  soldiers ;  whence  we  have  still  yeoman 
of  the  guard." 

"  Tall  yeomen  seemed  they  and  of  great  might. 
And  were  enraged  ready  still  for  fight. — Spensek. 

"  Whose  limbs  were  made  in  England  shew  us  here, 
The  mettle  of  your  pasture." — Shakspeare,  Hen.  V. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant My  Loixls,  yeoman  is  at  this   day  the 

general  description  of  a  man  who  is  not  a  gentleman,  or  an  esquire  ; 
for  if  a  man  has  acquired  no  addition  from  his  mystery,  trade,  or  craft, 
he  is  a  yeoman.  The  rules  of  law  must  adapt  themselves  to  the  grow- 
ing occasions  of  the  times,  and  that  man  Avill  be  effectually  described  as 
a  yeoman,  who  has  acquired  no  other  addition,  by  which  he  could  be 
discriminated.  In  common  reason,  it  is  to  be  considered  as  the  general 
description  of  a  man,  who  has  not  acquired  any  other.  A  soldier 
most  unquestionably  cannot  be  a  description  under  which  a  man  could 
be  indicted.     Burgess  is  not  a  good  description — nor  is  citizen,   nor 


310  TRIALS   OF 

servant  ;    neither  can  a  soldier,  because  it  is  not  general  enough 
upon  which  to  arraign  a  man. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General — The  single  question  is,  whether  under  i: 
the  statute  of  additions,  1  Hen.  V.  this  description  be  sufficient  ?  The 
authority  of  Shakspeare  and  Johnson  is  decisive  to  shew,  that  a  soldier 
is  a  yeoman.  2  Inst.  669.  If  a  man  be  named  a  yeoman,  he  cannot 
abate  the  writ.  Is  this  such  a  name  as  the  prisoner  may  be  known 
by  ?  He  has  given  no  evidence  of  his  being  of  any  art,  or  mystery, 
and  it  is  impossible  for  those  concerned  for  the  crown  to  know  in  all 
cases,  the  true  art,  or  mystery  of  a  person  accused.  Before  the  statute 
of  Hen.  Y.  no  description  was  necessary,  and  it  was  enacted  to  remove 
objections  made  in  outlawries.  But  where  a  party  is  forthcoming, 
the  argument  is  done  away.  Yeoman  is  a  generic  term,  including 
many  degrees,  and  is  fully  sufficient  to  answer  the  intention  of  the 
statute. 

Mr.  Saurin,  same  side. — This  plea  is  founded  upon  the  statute  of 
additions,  by  which  it  was  provided  that  persons  indicted,  should  be 
described  either  by  their  state  and  degree,  or  by  their  mystery,  or 
trade  ;  if  they  were  of  any  mystery  or  trade.  Ever  since  the  statutes 
was  enacted,  it  has  been  in  the  option  of  the  prosecutor  to  describe 
the  person  accused  by  his  rank,  or  his  trade ;  it  is  not  necessary  to 
describe  him  by  both.  From  Lord  Coke's  argument  upon  the  statute 
it  appears  that  state  or  degree  mean  one  and  the  same  thing  ;  "  The 
state  or  degree  wherein  a  subject  standeth."  There  are  many  persons 
who  have  no  trade  and  who  must  be  described  by  some  rank.  A 
soldier  is  no  trade,  and  he  stands  in  the  nature  of  a  servant  taken  into 
the  pay  of  the  crown,  and  does  not  come  within  the  description  of 
mystery,  or  trade — a  servant  is  not  of  any  mystery  or  trade.  See 
then  the  alternative  offered  to  the  prosecutor.  Where  a  party  has  no 
trade,  or  mystery,  he  must  be  described  by  his  state  or  degree  in  the 
community.  What  are  they  ?  If  under  the  rank  of  nobility,  they  are 
divided  into  baronets,  knights,  esquires,  gentlemen  and  yeomen,  and 
there  is  no  other  description  under  the  rank  of  nobility  by  which  he 
could  be  described.  Here  we  have  shewn  that  this  man  was  not  of  a 
trade  by  which  he  could  be  described,  and  therefore  he  must  be  de- 
scribed by  his  rank  and  condition,  that  is,  a  yeoman ;  and  if  he  be  not 
a  yeoman,  of  what  other  rank  is  he  ? 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain Is  there  any  precedent  of  an  indict- 
ment, describing  a  man  as  a  soldier  ? 

Mr.  Justice  Finucane It  appears  from   Kelyng,  that  sailor  is 

a  good  addition,  and  Hawkins,  in  explaining  the  Avord  mystery,  says, 
"  art,  trade,  or  occupation." 

Mr.  Kells  and  Mr.  Ruxton  said  a  few  words  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecution.  There  being  no  precedent  of  an  indictment  against  a 
man,  as  a  soldier,  was  a  strong  argument  to  shew  it  was  no  good  addi- 
tion, and  as  to  sailor,  it  may  be  observed,  that  it  is  a  sort  of  mystery, 
for  sailors  serve  a  regular  apprenticeship. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain, — The  inclination  of  some  of  the  court, 
indeed  I  may  say  it  is,  at  present,  the  opinion  of  all  the  court,  that 
yeoman  within  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word,  is  a  sufficient 
description  of  the  person.  We  mean  to  tell  the  jury  so,  and  after  that 
to  adjourn  the  court,  and  take  the  opinion  of  all  the  judges  this  even- 


THE   DEFENDERS.  31  1 

ing  ;  and  in  case  we  should  be  wrong  in  the  opinion  now  given,  we 
shall  take  their  advice  how  to  proceed. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury, — the  issue  you  are  to  decide  upon  is — 
Whether  the  prisoner  is  a  yeoman  according  to  the  strict  legal  defini- 
tion of  the  word  ?  Upon  the  authority  of  Judge  Blackstone,  who  is 
certainly  a  very  high  authority  in  the  law,  the  prisoner  does  not 
appear  to  be  a  yeoman.  But  according  to  the  best  writers  in  the 
English  language,  he  is  a  yeoman.  "  It  seems  to  have  been  an  ancient 
kind  of  ceremonious  title  given  to  soldiers,  yeomen  of  the  guard." 
Our  present  opinion  is,  that  entitling  the  prisoner  by  a  general  title 
of  courtesy  is  sufficient  within  the  statute  of  additions — All  society  is 
divided  into  peers,  baronets,  knights,  esquires,  gentlemen,  and  yeomen, 
tradesmen,  and  artificers.  At  the  time  of  finding  this  indictment, 
which  is  the  material  time  for  you  to  attend  to,  the  prisoner  was  not 
an  artificex'.  He  had  been  bx^ed  a  breeches-maker,  but  two  years 
before  he  had  given  up  that  and  became  a  soldier,  so  that,  at  the  time 
of  finding  the  bill,  he  could  not  be  entitled  a  tradesman,  or  artificer, 
nor  a  gentleman,  nor  an  esquire.  Therefore  imder  the  common 
acceptation  of  the  word,  I  think  him  sufficiently  described,  and  I  am 
strongly  fortified  by  this  circumstance,  that  no  precedent  is  produced 
where  a  man  is  described  as  a  soldier  in  an  indictment.  There  may 
be  a  reasen  for  sailors,  because  they  serve  an  apprenticeship.  Upon 
the  best  English  authorities,  yeoman  is  a  title  of  courtesy.  If  we  are 
wrong  in  this  opinion,  we  shall  be  set  right  by  the  judges,  who  will 
be  summoned  this  evening. 

The  jury  retired,  and  after  some  deliberation,  brought  in  a  verdict 
that  the  prisoner  is  a  yeoman. 

The  court  immediately  adjourned. 

Tuesday,  December  22,  1795. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — We  are  to  inform  the  prisoner  and 
his  counsel,  that  nine  of  the  judges  met  at  Lord  Clonmel's,  and  they 
were  unanimously  of  opinion  that  the  direction  given  to  the  jury  was 
right. 

The  prisoner  then  pleaded.  Not  Guilty. 

the  jury. 

Sir  Edward  Crofton,  Bart.  William  Sparrow,  merchant. 

William  Bury,  Esq.  James  French,  merchant. 

William  Cope,  Esq.  Ralph  Mulhern,  merchant. 

Moi'gan  Crofton,  Esq.  Heniy  Pettigrew,  merchant. 

Rawden  Hautenville,  Esq.  William  Blair,  merchant. 

Thomas  Read,  merchant.  John  Smith,  merchant. 

The  prisoner  was  then  given  in  charge  to  the  jury  by  the  Clerk  of 
the  Crown,  who  read  the  whole  indictment. 

Mr.  RuxTON  opened  the  pleadings. 

Mr.  Attorney-Generae. — My  lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury. 
In  this  case  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  me  to  do  more  than  state  the 
several  circumstances  which  may  be  material  to  explain  the  evidence 
that  will  be  produced;  and  even  this  statement  is  rendered  necessary 
rather  from  the  importance  of  the  case,  than  any  difficulty,  which  will 
occur.     Were  I  to  follow  my  own  discretion,  the  case  is  so  simple  as 


312  TRIALS    OF 

to  need  no  statement,  but  merely  to  produce  the  witnesses  upon  the 
table.  Gentlemen,  the  prisoner  stands  charged  with  the  highest 
crime  known  to  the  law ;  tlie  indictment  states  two  species  of  that 
crime,  1st,  compassing  and  imagining  the  death  of  the  King: — 2dly, 
with  adhering  to  the  enemies  of  the  King.  Gentlemen,  the  charge 
of  compassing  the  death  of  the  King,  it  may  be  necessary  to  explain 
in  a  few  words  ;  very  few  I  shall  use,  because  it  will  be  the  duty  of 
the  court  to  explain  to  you,  the  law  upon  that  subject ;  therefore  I 
shall  only  say  so  much  as  will  enable  your  minds  to  apply  the  evidence 
to  the  charge  stated  in  the  indictment.  The  law  has  made  it  a  capital 
offence  to  compass,  or  imagine  the  death  of  the  King.  Our  mild 
laws,  gentlemen,  make  the  imagination  of  no  other  offence  penal ; — 
the  crime  must  be  committed  in  every  other  case.  But  the  person  of 
the  King  is  sacred :  So  much  depends  upon  his  life,  that  for  the 
sake  of  the  public,  their  tranquillity,  the  preservation  of  their  lives 
and  properties,  the  law  has  guarded  the  life  of  the  King  in  a  peculiar 
manner.  Any  act,  that  in  its  nature  tends  to  bring  the  life  of  the 
sovereign  into  danger,  will  support  the  charge  of  compassing  his 
death.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  party  accused  shall  have  enter- 
tained the  design  of  putting  the  King  to  actual  death — of  depriving 
him  of  life : — it  is  sufficient  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  if  the  man  has 
determined  to  act  in  such  a  manner  as  to  bring  that  to  pass.  As  to 
levy  war — to  change  the  government,  which  cannot  be  undertaken 
without  hazarding  the  King's  life — to  binng  war  upon  the  kingdom 
must  expose  his  life  ;  and  even  though  the  party  had  in  his  own  mind 
predetermined,  not  to  put  the  King  to  death,  yet,  if  he  does  those 
acts,  which  endanger  his  life,  he  is  guilty.  But,  gentlemen,  the  law, 
which  is  thus  careful  of  the  sovereign's  life,  guards  with  equal  care 
the  lives  of  the  subjects,  who  may  be  accused  of  intending  to  commit 
such  a  crime.  Thoush  the  law  makes  the  iniaoiuinjv  the  King's 
death  a  crime,  yet  it  takes  care  that  it  shall  be  proved  by  such 
circumstances  as  evince  the  fact  of  the  intention.  There  must  be 
what  is  called  an  overt  act  stated  upon  the  indictment ;  and  that  overt 
act  must  be  proved,  from  Avhence  it  can  be  collected,  that  the  design 
was  taken  to  compass  and  imagine  the  King's  death. 

The  other  species  of  treason  with  which  the  prisoner  is  charged,  is 
adhering  to  the  enemies  of  the  King — to  persons  in  a  state  of  war 
with  these  realms.  Gentlemen,  it  is  needless  to  say  anything  in 
explaining  the  nature  of  this  crime  : — it  speaks  itself.  These,  gentle- 
men, are  the  two  charges,  that  he  did  compass  the  King's  death — 
that  he  adhered  to  the  King's  enemies.  Adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies  is  evidence  also  of  the  compassing  of  the  death  of  the  King ; 
because  it  is  impossible  to  adhere  to  the  enemies  of  the  King  without 
exposing  that  sacred  life  to  danger.  Gentlemen,  I  shall  state  the 
overt  acts  which  are  to  support  these  charges.  There  are  eight  of 
them.  If  any  one  of  them  be  proved,  and  the  inference  be  drawn 
from  it,  which  the  indictment  charges,  though  there  be  no  evidence 
of  the  other  seven,  the  prisoner  must  be  found  guilty.  Tlie  first  overt 
act  states,  that  he  associated  Avith  divers  traitors  unknown,  and 
became  one  of  a  party  under  the  denomination  of  Defenders  for  the 
purj)ose  of  assisting  and  adliering  to  the  persons  exercising  the  powers 
of  government  in  France.     Th(,^   second  is,  that  he   assembled  with 


THE    DEFENDERS.  313 

others  to  consult  about  adhering  to  the  French.  Thirdly,  that  he 
associated  with  persons  called  Defenders  for  the  purpose  of  overturning 
the  government  of  this  kingdom  as  by  law  established.  The  fourth 
overt  act  is  that  he  united  with  Defenders  for  the  purpose  of  over- 
turning the  Protestant  religion.  Fifthly,  that  he  enlisted  one  William 
Lawler  to  aid  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in 
France,  and  administered  to  him  an  oath,  upon  which  I  shall  presently 
make  some  observations.  Sixth  overt  act  states,  that  he  enlisted 
Lawler  to  adhere  to  the  French,  should  they  invade  this  kingdom, 
and  that  he  administered  a  catechism  for  that  purpose.  The  seventh 
is,  that  he  enlisted,  corrupted  and  procured  Lawler  to  become  one  of 
a  party  formed  for  the  purpose  of  subverting  the  government.  Eighth, 
that  he  enlisted  him  for  the  purpose  of  overturning  the  Protestant 
religion.  Such,  gentlemen,  are  the  facts  to  be  proved  against  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar.  I  have  stated  the  outlines  of  them.  Some,  or 
one  of  them  must  be  proved,  to  sustain  the  charge.  The  same  overt 
acts  are  laid  as  applicable  to  each  of  the  species  of  treason  charged 
against  the  prisoner. 

Gentlemen,  having  stated,  thus  briefly,  the  charge  and  the  nature 
of  it,  it  becomes  my  duty  to  state  the  evidence  that  will  be  produced 
to  sustain  that  charge.  Before,  however,  I  enter  into  the  particulars 
of  that  evidence,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  call  to  your  recollection 
the  state  of  things  in  this  country  at  the  time  this  otfence  is  alleged 
to  have  been  committed.  La  doing  this,  gentlemen,  I  shall  state 
what  is  a  notorious  historical  fact — what  cannot  be  excluded  from 
your  minds — every  man  in  the  community  must  be  impressed  with  it. 
For  some  years  there  have  existed  in  this  country,  a  number  of 
persons,  associated  for  wicked  and  atrocious  purposes,  styling  them- 
selves "  Defenders."  They  have  from  time  to  time  for  the  last  four 
or  five  years  infested  almost  every  part  of  this,  in  that  respect,  unhappy 
country.  It  has  appeared  in  various  trials  in  the  different  provinces, 
what  the  nature  of  the  association  of  those  wretches  is : — it  has 
appeared  with  what  designs  they  associated,  and  though  those  Avho 
excited  them  have  not  appeared  to  public  view,  yet  the  manner  of 
exciting  them,  and  the  object  ai'e  but  too  plain.  Since  the  year  1790, 
there  have  appeared  in  many  counties,  particularly  in  the  northern, 
eastern  and  western  counties,  many  persons  under  the  denomination 
of  Defenders,  connnitting  various  outrages,  and  avIio  have  directed 
their  attempts  most  particularly  to  disarm  their  fellow  subjects.  It 
has  appeared  in  every  investigation  of  this  offence,  that  there  have 
been  in  various  counties,  a  number  of  persons,  calling  themselves 
"  Committee  Men,"  who  have  guided  the  wretches  they  have  deluded, 
directed  their  actions,  and  prescribed  their  movements ; — pointed  out 
the  different  courses  they  were  to  take,  and  administered  oaths,  "  to 
be  true  and  faithful  to  the  committee  men," — "  to  obey  the  laAvs  of 
the  committee  in  all  things," — and  these  oaths  they  have  guarded 
with  such  equivocations,  that  while  they  bound  the  parties  to  the 
commission  of  the  most  atrocious  crimes,  the  oath  should  appear  to  be 
merely  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King,  and  submission  to  the  laws 
of  the  country.  These  committees  have  existed  in  many  counties  of 
the  kingdom,  associating  the  lower  orders  of  the  people,  by  holding 
out  promises  to  seduce  uneducated  men ; — telling  the  poor  lliat  they 


314  TRIALS    OF 

would  enjoy  the  property  of  the  rich  ;  that  they  were  no  longer  to 
exist  by  their  industry,  and  representing  what  they  knew  must  be 
impossible,  that  all  men  were  equal.  If  it  were  possible  that  such 
equality  could  be  effected,  the  consequence  would  be  the  subversion 
of  all  government,  and  that  all  would  be  reduced  to  a  savage  state. 
Such,  gentlemen,  were  the  topics  held  out..  In  other  places  they 
propagated  diiferent  things — and  they  dared  to  use  the  sacred  name 
of  religion,  having  no  religion  themselves,  to  forward  the  purposes  of 
their  wicked  imposition.  It  has  appeared  in  too  many  instances,  and 
I  am  shocked  while  I  state  it,  that  these  miscreants  endeavoured  to 
instil  hatred  and  animosity  into  the  minds  of  their  converts  against 
their  fellow  christians,  though  differing  in  some  speculative  points, 
professing  the  same  religion,  worshipping  the  same  God,  and  seeking 
redemption  through  the  same  Jesus  Christ.  They  represented,  that 
their  Protestant  brethren  were  to  be  destroyed ;  and  this  they 
attempted  at  a  time  when  the  legislature  has  been  session  after  session, 
endeavouring  to  put  them  upon  a  footing  with  themselves  ;  to  do 
away  differences  and  to  put  an  end  to  distrust.  While  I  say  this, 
gentlemen,  let  no  man  imagine,  that  we  mean  to  impute  anything  of 
this  kind  to  the  general  body  professing  the  Roman  Catholic  religion. 
No,  gentlemen,  we  attribute  these  abominable  practices  to  others, 
who  are  seeking  their  own  impious  views.  It  is  a  subject  so  abhorrent 
to  my  nature,  that  I  would  not  have  mentioned  it,  but  that  it  must 
come  out  in  evidence  ;  for  I  would  not  suffer  a  word  to  escape  my  lips, 
that  would  tend  to  divide  those,  who  are  bound  to  that  law,  and  that 
government  which  we  all  enjoy.  The  conduct  of  the  committee  men 
is  historically  known  ;  it  is  proved  in  Connaught,  it  is  proved  in 
several  counties  of  the  north  and  in  Leinster ;  and  it  is  wonderful, 
that  I  have  seen  circumstances  proved  in  the  most  distant  parts  of  the 
west,  corresponding  with  circumstances  arising  in  the  distant  parts  of 
the  north  and  east — manifesting  most  clearly,  that  there  was  a  united 
scheme  to  subvert  the  religion  and  the  government  of  the  country, 
by  exciting  sedition  among  the  lower  orders  of  the  people.  How 
these  schemes  were  set  on  foot  so  universally,  whether  by  French 
gold,  or  democratic  clubs,  is  neither  for  you,  gentlemen,  nor  me  now 
to  enquire — whether  by  the  United  Society  of  Dublin,  or  Belfast,  I 
will  not  trouble  you  at  present  with  taking  notice,  or  enquiring.  I 
only  wish  to  impress  upon  your  minds,  that  it  is  a  fact  historically 
known,  that  there  does  exist  in  the  country  such  a  scheme  of  rebellion 
and  insurrection.  Further  to  forward  this  plan,  they  have  levied 
money  from  the  poor  wretches  they  seduced.  A  man  sworn  pays  a 
shilling  to  the  person  administering  the  oath.  The  committee  man 
receives  the  shilling,  and  if  he  swear  many,  the  consequence  is,  a 
considerable  income.  In  fact,  the  practice  became  common,  and  they 
spoke  of  a  committee  man  in  a  village  as  they  would  of  a  shoemaker. 
"  "Where  are  you  going  ?"  "  To  the  Defender-maker."  And  to  that 
Defender-maker  the  person  paid  a  shilling,  as  if  he  had  obtained 
something  valuable. 

So  far,  gentlemen,  it  is  necessary  I  should  state  these  facts  to  you. 
I  hope  in  doing  so,  I  do  not  overpass  my  duty.  I  do  not  mean  to 
I'ouse  your  passions  upon  this  subject ;  and  if  I  did,  I  could  not.  The 
statement  I  have  made  cannot  affect  the  prisoner,  unless  it  be  proved 


THE    DEFENDERS.  315 

that  he  is  such  a  man  as  is  charged  by  the  indictment,  and  it  was 
necessary  to  state  what  I  have,  that  you  might  understand  the  dangers 
and  proceedings  of  the  Defenders,  which  will  be  proved  in  evidence. 

Gentlemen,  the  ci'ime  with  which  the  prisoner  is  charged,  is  of  the 
most  awful  nature  in  its  consequences  both  to  him,  and  to  the  public. 
The  charge  is  this,  that  the  man  at  the  bar  is  guilty  of  a  crime,  the 
end  and  object  of  which  Avas  the  destruction  of  the  government  under 
which  we  live — the  destruction  of  the  life  and  liberty  of  every  man 
living  under  it — the  destruction  of  our  laws,  which  have  been  the 
envy  of  every  one  for  seven  hundred  years.  But  this  crime  is  greatly 
aggravated,  if  it  be  capable  of  aggravation,  by  the  peculiar  situation 
in  which  the  prisoner  stood.  The  prisoner  at  the  bar  was,  at  the 
time  the  offence  was  committed,  a  dragoon  serving  his  Majesty  in  the 
7th  regiment  of  Guards,  then  in  this  city — placed  in  a  situation  to 
defend  his  country — sworn  in  the  presence  of  God,  for  whom  he 
seems  to  entertain  a  profound  reverence,  to  defend  his  King  and 
country.  Such  is  the  man,  upon  whose  life  your  verdict  is  now  to 
pass.  Gentlemen,  having  stated  the  situation  in  which  he  was  placed, 
and  the  duty  he  particularly  owed  to  his  King  and  country — having 
stated  that  he  had  solemnly  sanctioned  that  duty  in  the  presence  of 
his  God,  it  is  the  less  probable,  that  he  should  commit  the  crime.  If 
however  he  shall  have  committed  the  crime,  then  he  will  be  less  an 
object  of  mercy.  Gentlemen,  it  Avill  be  proved,  that  this  man  adminis- 
tered an  oath  to  a  person  of  the  name  of  William  Lawler,  which  oath 
went  to  bind  that  person  to  be  a  Defender  ; — and  now  having  men- 
tioned the  name  of  the  person,  who  is  the  witness  for  the  prosecution 
upon  this  trial ;  I  shall  state  to  you  the  nature  of  the  evidence  he  is 
to  give,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  Crown  became  acquainted  with 
the  designs  of  the  conspirators. 

William  Lawler,  the  witness,  is  a  native  of  this  city  ;  he  is  by  trade 
a  gilder ;  served  a  regular  apprenticeship  to  that  trade — after  which 
he  practised  at  it  for  some  time  in  this  city,  and  then  went  to  London 
where  his  father  had  removed.  There  he  had  the  misfortune,  and  it 
is  common  to  others  as  well  as  him,  to  read  the  words  of  that  cele- 
brated apostle  Mr.  Paine — to  have  his  imagination  somewhat  heated 
by  his  writings,  and  he  became  a  member  of  the  London  Corresponding 
Society,  associated  to  improve  our  constitution.*  There  his  principles 
were  not  much  improved  ;  he  returned  to  Dublin,  and  became  a 
member  of  a  reading  society  : — it  was  called  the  Telegraphe  Society  ; 
and  also  of  another  society  of  an  admirable  name,  if  it  imported 
nothing  more ;  that  was  the  Philanthropic  Society,  where  there  were 
readings,  and  instructions,  which  if  followed  would  have  left  the  jury 
no  constitution,  no  law,  upon  which  to  hear  the  Attorney-General 
state  a  case  in  the  court  of  King's  Bench.      In  that  society  they 

*  The  London  Corresponding  Society  originated  about  1792,  its  grand  object, 
parliamentary  reform,  on  the  Duke  of  Richmond's  plan.  Chief-Justice  Eyre,  in 
his  charge  on  the  trial  of  Tooke,  said,  "  It  is  so  composed,  as  by  dividing  and 
subdividing  each  division,  as  soon  as  it  amounted  to  a  certain  number,  sending  off 
a  new  division  so  as  to  spread  over  the  country,  every  other  society,  no  matter 
how  remote,  it  incorporates  or  aifiliates,  till  it  embrace  an  extent  incalculable.  It 
is  undoubtedly  a  political  monster."  John  Edwards,  on  Hardy's  trial,  deposed  that 
this  society  was  reading  the  address  of  Mr.  Pitt  and  the  Duke  of  Richmond  when 
it  was  assailed  by  the  police. — Madden,  1  vol.  1  scries,  112. 


316  TRIALS    OF 

received  instructions  from  Mr.  Burke,  now  a  fugitive  in  America. 
The  Defenders  having  broke  out  with  unusual  violence  last  summer, 
approached  the  capital,  and  began  to  disturb  the  outlets  of  the  city. 
Lawler,  a  member  of  the  society,  and  a  republican,  desirous  enough 
(I  will  not  attempt  to  conceal  it)  of  disturbance  was  asked  by  some 
of  the  associates,  or  a  discourse  arose  among  them,  Kennedy,  Brady, 
Hart,  and  others,  touching  the  Defenders.  However  the  subject  was 
first  introduced,  it  was  proposed,  that  Lawler  should  become  a 
Defender,  and  for  that  purpose,  some  of  these  excellent  clubbists  (he 
Avill  inform  you  who  they  were)  proposed  bringing  him  to  the  prisoner, 
then  quartered  in  Dublin.  Accordingly  Lawler  was  brought  by  two 
persons  of  the  names  of  Kennedy  and  Brady,  to  the  pi'isoner,  opposite 
the  barrack  gate,  Avhere  the  prisoner,  Weldon  was  : — they  sat  for 
some  time  together.  Weldon  was  then  quartered  in  the  barrack,  but 
had  a  lodging  within  a  door  or  two  of  an  ale-house.  Kennedy  and 
Brady  bring  Lawler  to  this  lodging  ;  after  they  had  sat  some  time 
drinking  punch,  one  Clayton  came  in,  and  they  proposed  to  swear 
Clayton  and  Lawler.  Accordingly  they  were  sworn  by  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar,  and  upon  being  sworn  they  paid  their  shilling  a-piece.  A 
discourse  arose,  after  the  swearing,  touching  the  object  and  nature  of 
the  Defender's  pursuits,  and  in  the  course  of  that  conversation,  the 
prisoner  did  avow,  that  there  would  shortly  be  a  rising  in  the  north, 
which  would  be  joined  by  a  person,  whose  name  Weldon  did  not 
disclose — a  rising  to  effect  by  foi'ce  the  purposes  of  these  associated 
Defenders — and  the  other  persons,  Kennedy  and  Brady  did  unite  in 
declarations  of  that  sort.  It  will  appear  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  being 
thus  laiited  Defenders,  Lawler  was  brought  to  three  different  meetings, 
where  Defenders  were  assembled,  particularly  at  a  public  house  in 
Plunket-street — there  were  eighteen  on  nineteen  together,  and  there 
a  discourse  arose,  and  a  proposition  was  made,  for  buying  powder 
and  procuring  arms,  for  the  purpose  of  rising  to  seize  the  Castle  of 
Dublin,  of  seducing  the  army  from  their  duty,  and  by  terrifying  the 
good,  industrious  citizens  of  this  town  into  a  belief  that  the  army  had 
betrayed  them,  they  might  be  put  into  the  possession  and  under  the 
government  of  miscreants  such  as  these. 

Such,  gentlemen,  are  the  facts,  or  pretty  nearly  (for  I  do  not 
pretend  to  say  they  are  precisely)  such  as  will  appear  in  evidence. 
I  will  now  state  the  oath  administered  to  Lawler  by  the  prisoner,  to 
whom  he  had  been  bi'ought  by  Kennedy  and  Brady.  The  oath  was 
this — "  I,  William  Lawler,  of  my  own  good  Avill,  and  consent,  do 
swear  to  be  true  to  his  Majesty  King  George  the  Third."  The  oath 
Avhich  the  prisoner  himself  had  taken,  but  with  a  little  addition  to  it, 
Avell  worthy  your  attention,  because  it  appears  to  me  that  what  was 
designed  to  cover  the  guilt,  is,  if  I  iniderstand  it,  the  strongest 
manifestation  of  it.  "  I  will  be  true,  while  I  live  under  the  same 
government" — The  first  part  is  an  oath  of  allegiance,  but  not  that  of 
remaining  under  his  government ;  indicative,  demonstrably,  of  a 
design  to  change  the  government : — it  is  not  limited  to  the  life  of  the 
King — but  while  the  government  remains,  and  when  the  oath  was 
administered,  the  prisoner  ex^dained  it,  knowing  that  the  object  was 
to  appear  to  be  taking  an  oath  of  allegiance,  while  he  was  intending 
to  destroy  the  King — This,  said  he,  is  put  in  to  deceive  the  army, 


THE    DEFENDERS.  317 

that  tliey  may  not  discover  tlie  consequences.  "  I  swear  to  be  true, 
aiding  and  assisting  to  every  free  brother" — that  is  a  name  for  a 
Defender  known  among  themselves — "  And  in  every  form  of  article 
from  the  first  foundation  1790,  and  every  amendment  hitherto,  and 
will  be  obedient  to  my  committees,  superior  commanders,  and  officers, 
in  all  lawful  proceedings  and  not  otherwise."  Here  there  is  the  same 
sort  of  concealment,  that  is  introduced  in  the  part  concerning  the 
King  ;  and,  gentlemen,  you  must  perceive,  that  "  laAvful  proceedings" 
mean  proceedings  according  to  their  laws — "  nor  will  I  consent  to 
any  society,  or  any  brotlier  of  an  unlawful  character,  but  will  observe 
and  obey  the  laws  and  regulations  of  my  committee  to  whom  I  belong 
determined  brotlier" — (Here  Mr.  Attorney- General  stated  the  remain- 
der of  the  oath  as  set  out  in  the  indictment.)  This,  gentlemen,  was 
the  oath  administered,  as  the  witness  will  swear,  by  the  prisoner,  to 
Lawler  and  Clayton — an  oath,  that  needs  little  comment ;  it  is 
impossible  to  read  it,  without  putting  the  construction  upon  it,  that 
it  requires  obedience  to  other  laws,  than  those  of  the  countiy.  But 
if  there  were  any  doubt  upon  this,  it  will  be  removed  by  perusing 
the  catechism,  which  was  administered  and  attested  at  the  same  time. 
It  is  pretty  much  the  same  as  has  appeared  in  several  counties  of  the 
kingdom.  It  is  plain,  that  there  was  but  one  National  Convention  in 
the  world  at  the  time,  that  of  France,  and  if  you  are  satisfied  of  these 
overt  acts,  both  species  of  treason  will  be  proved,  encompassing  the 
King's  death   and  adhering  to  his   enemies.      (Here   Mr.  Attorney 

stated  the  catechism,  vid.  indictment.)    Whether gs  means  kings, 

you  will  determine.  A  stroke  is  made  first  in  the  paper  and  immedi- 
ately after  and  close  to  it,  are  the  letters  gs,  being  the  final  letters  of 
the  word  kings.  You  are  to  determine  how  they  meant  to  fill  it  up, 
whether  with  that  word  or  not.  Upon  putting  all  the  parts  together, 
you  Avill  determine,  what  the  object  and  tendency  of  the  force  intended 
to  be  raised  was  ;  whether  it  be  not  manifest,  that  there  was  an  object 
by  force  to  change  the  government,  and  by  that  to  aid  the  powers  of 
France,  Avhich  is  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  "  To  queal  all 
nations"  Avas  to  put  down  the  established  government,  and  to  place 
themselves  as  governors,  and  to  exercise  that  tyranny,  which  is  exer- 
cised in  a  neighbouring  country,  and  using  as  a  pretence,  the  sacred 
name  of  freedom. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  told  you,  that  after  this  oath  was  administered, 
the  witness  attended  tv>'0  or  three  meetings  of  the  Defenders,  hitherto, 
possibly,  conceiving  that  the  Defenders  might  be  used  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  what  was  their  grand  object,  a  reform  of  the  realm — a 
reform  of  the  state,  by  making  it  a  republic,  and  putting  men,  such 
as  himself  in  the  government.  But  after  attending  one  or  two 
meetings,  he  found  the  persons  assembled  had  objects  very  different 
from  Avhat  he  had  conceived.  He  was  cautioned  to  take  care  how 
he  should  say,  he  Avas  a  Protestant,  and  some  of  those  miscreants 
departing  from  that  religion  of  which  they  pretended  to  be  members, 
formed  designs  of  massacreing  their  Protestant  brethren.  Gentlemen, 
let  me  repeat  it  again,  for  I  cannot  repeat  it  too  often,  that  Ave  do  not 
suppose,  that  any  educated,  or  well-minded  Catholic  could  entertain 
such  a  design  ; — but  young  men,  Avhose  minds  are  easily  heated,  for 
such  there  are,  unlettered  men,  profligate  men,  Avithout  religion,  or 


318  TRIALS   OF 

morals,  of  the  lower  order  of  the  people — these  are  the  persons  who 
are  persuaded  to  entertain  designs  of  this  sort,  and  to  the  extent  of 
their  power  would  make  the  attempt.  Lawler  discovered  this — a 
Protestant — seeing  the  tendency  of  their  meeting,  and  knowing  that 
the  Defenders  were  associated  throughout  the  kingdom,  he  became 
alarmed  for  the  conseqviences,  as  to  himself.  He  immediately  disclosed 
the  designs  to  a  gentleman  by  whom  he  had  been  employed — a  man 
of  great  worth  and  credit.  Lawler  told  him  confidently  what  had 
come  to  his  knowledge.  That  gentleman,  Mr.  Cowen,  did,  as  was  his 
duty,  inform  government  of  the  situation  in  which  the  state  was,  for 
several  hundreds  were  united  in  the  scheme.  Government  thus 
alarmed  did  immediately  seize  upon  those  against  whom  they  had 
charges  and  they  were  committed  to  prison : — they  now  remain  for 
their  trials,  and  the  prisoner  Weldon  is  first  brought  up.  One  piece 
of  evidence,  gentlemen,  I  have  omitted  to  state,  Avhich  if  it  should 
appear  in  the  light  I  state  it,  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  this  case. 
Weldon  was  a  private  in  the  7th  Dragoons,  which  was  ordered  to 
Cork,  there  to  embark  for  foreign  service.  Thus  taken  from  his 
gainful  situation  of  a  committee-man,  or  Defender-maker,  it  was 
necessary  to  appoint  some  person  to  succeed  him.  He  gave  the  oath 
and  the  article  to  Kennedy,  that  he  might  become  a  committee-man. 
Kennedy  was  seized,  and  in  the  fob  in  his  breeches  were  found  the 
oath  and  the  catechism,  which  Weldon  had  administered  to  Lawler. 
So  that  here  is  a  fact,  which  could  not  be  made  for  the  occasion — a 
fact  disclosed  before  Kennedy  was  seized — that  the  oath  was  delivered 
over  to  Kennedy,  which  is  fully  and  cleai'ly  corroborative  of  the 
testimony  of  Lawler.  We  will  now  call  him,  and  we  doubt  not  you 
will  examine  this  case,  so  important  to  society,  with  all  due  delibera- 
tion, and  find  such  verdict,  as  will  do  you  honour,  and  the  public 
justice. 

William  Lawler,  sworn ^Examined  by  the  Solicitor-Gteneral. 

Q.  What  has  been  your  occupation — were  you  bred  to  any  trade  ? 
A.  I  was  bred  in  the  gilding  line. 

Q.  Did  you  work  at  that  trade  in  England  or  Ireland  ?  A  In  both 
places. 

Q.  First  in  L'eland,  then  in  England  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  served  an  apprenticeship  here  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  To  Avhom  ?  A.  The  first  part  to  Mr.  Robinson  of  College- 
green  ;  the  second  part  to  Mr.  Williamson  of  Grafton-street. 

Q.  Did  you  work  at  your  trade  in  England  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  return  ?     A.  About  two  years  ago. 

Q.  When  did  you  go  to  England  ?     A.  About  the  year  1791. 

Q.  During  the  time  you  were  in  England,  did  you  belong  to  any 
political  society  ?     A.  The  London  Corresponding  Society. 

Q.  Upon  your  return  to  Ireland,  did  you  bring  any  letters  of  intro- 
duction ?     A.  One. 

Q.  To  whom  ?     A.  To  Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan. 

Q.  From  whom  ?  A.  From  Daniel  Isaac  Eaton,  of  Bishopsgate- 
street,  London,  printer. 

Q.  I  suppose  you  delivered  that  letter  ?  A.  I  delivered  it  to  a 
servant  of  Hamilton  Rowan.     I  called  in  about  a  week,  and  saw  him. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  319 

Q.  "Where  was  he  then  ?  A.  He  came  out  of  a  back  parlour,  and 
we  both  Avent  into  the  front  parlour. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  afterwards  ?  A.  Yes,  I  saw  him  in  the 
street,  and  then  in  Newgate. 

Q.  After  your  arrival  in  Ireland,  did  you  become  a  member  of  any 
society  ?     A.I  did,  sir. 

Q.  Of  what  society  ?  A.  I  do  not  rightly  recollect  the  name  of 
the  first,  but  after  it  was  dissolved 

Q.  Where  did  it  meet  ?  A.  At  my  rooms,  at  one  Galland's  in 
Crane-lane,  and  in  Hoey's-court.  When  that  was  dissolved  I  became  a 
member  of  another. 

Q.  What  was  the  name  of  the  second  society  ?  A.  The  Philan- 
thropic Society. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  that  the  first  had  any  particular  name  ? 
A.  It  had  a  name,  but  I  do  not  recollect  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  name  of  any  particular  gentleman  of  that 
Philanthropic  Society  ?     A.  There  was  a  Telegraphic  Society. 

Q.  But  do  you  remember  the  names  of  any  persons  belonging  to 
the  Philantrophic  society  ?     A.  There  was  Burke  and  Galland  in  it. 

Q.  What  Burke  ?     A.  Of  the  CoUege. 

Q.  What  is  become  of  him  ?  A.  I  do  not  know,  but  am  informed 
he  is  gone  to  America. 

Q  You  afterwards  became  a  member  of  the  Telegraphic  Society  ? 
A.  They  were  both  much  about  the  same  time. 

Q.  Was  there  any  particular  object  of  this  society  ?  A.  Of  the 
Telegraphic. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  trust  the  gentlemen  concerned  for  the  crown  will 
endeavour  to  keep  the  witness,  whose  evidence  they  are  apprised  of, 
to  the  strict  rule  of  not  drawing  from  him  any  answer,  of  the  legality 
of  which  there  may  be  a  doubt.  It  is  too  general  to  ask  what  the 
object  of  a  society  was.  I  do  no  state  this  formally  to  argue  upon  it ; 
but  suggest  it  to  their  candour. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General. — If  I  knew  of  any  other  mode  less 
leading  than  that  which  I  have  used,  I  would  adopt  it ;  but  upon  some 
points  it  is  impossible  to  put  a  question  without  in  some  measure  sug- 
gesting an  answer  to  it. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — If  I  am  pushed  to  the  necessity  of  arguing  the 
ground  of  the  objection,  it  will  require  very  little  to  be  said  in  support 
of  it.  This  man  says  he  was  a  member  of  a  particular  society,  and  he 
is  asked  what  was  the  object  of  that  society,  although  the  prisoner 
was  not  a  member  of  it. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — You  have  not  laid  a  foundation  for 
asking  this  question,  vmless  you  establish  a  privity  between  this 
society  and  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General If  I  were  driven  to  argue  this  ques- 
tion, I  could  support  it  by  very  recent  adjudications.  To  shew  the 
general  schemes  of  treason,  it  is  competent  to  examine  as  to  the  object 
and  design  of  the  persons  charged  as  traitors  ;  it  was  the  uniform 
practice  in  the  cases  of  Hardy  and  Tooke.  But  it  is  not  kind  to 
embarrass  the  court,  if  it  can  be  avoided. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  society,  beside  the  Philanthrophic  and 
Telegraphic  of  which  you  became  a  member?  A.  Not  till  I  became 
a  member  of  the  Defenders. 


320  TRIALS   OF 

Q.  Did  they  call  themselves  Defenders  ?  A.  They  met  in  serei*al 
parts  of  the  town. 

Q.  You  sav  you  were  of  a  society  called  Defenders  ?  A.  I  helieve 
about  a  fortnight  after  the  Fermanagh  militia  left  Dublin,  Brady  and 
Kennedy,  called  upon  me  to  go  to  'VVeldon  to  be  sworn  as  a  Defender. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — You  cannot  ascertain  the  time  more  particu- 
larly ?     A.  Xo,  my  lord. 

Q.  Neither  the  month,  nor  the  day  ?  A.  Xo,  my  lord,  for  Brady 
was  to  haye  brought  me  to  Hanlon,  but  he  leaying  town,  Brady  brought 
me  to  TTeldon.) 

Q.  Who  was  Kennedy  ?  A.  He  was  an  apprentice  to  ilr  Kennedy 
the  glass-cutter  in  Stephen-street. 

Q.  TMiat  was  Kennedy's  christian  name  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  CuRRAX. — It  strikes  me,  that  this  is  not  a  fair  examination,  to 
examine  the  witness  to  the  acts  of  two  strangers  unconnected  with 
the  prisoner.  It  is  evidence  to  say,  that  two  persons  carried  him,  the 
witness,  to  the  prisoner — ^but  to  say  they  called  upon  him  with  the 
intention  of  having  him  sworn  is  matter  of  opinion,  and  the  evidence 
ought  to  consist  of  facts. 

(Court.) — Unless  the  witness  was  sworn,  the  e\-idence  wiU  signify 
nothing. 

Q.  You  saw  "Weldon,  the  prisoner  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  ^Tiere  was  it?  A.  At  the  stables  belonging  to  the  Horse- 
baiTack. 

Q.  (By  the  Cotirt "Were  Brady  and  Kennedy  along  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  my  lord.) 

Q.  "VSTien  you  met  "Weldon,  where  was  he  ?  A.  He  happened  to 
be  in  the  stable.  On  Brady's  asking  for  him  he  came  out  ;  Brady 
introduced  me  to  him ;  we  then  went  to  a  public-house. 

Q-  Before  you  got  to  the  pubKc-house,  did  Weldon  say  or  do  any- 
thing ?  A.  Xot  to  me ;  he  only  asked  me  how  I  was,  and  shook 
hands  with  me. 

Q.  Did  nothing  particular  pass  in  the  manner  of  introducing  you  ? 
Au.  Xo,  sir ;  not  there. 

Q.  When  you  arrived  at  the  public-house,  what  happened  there  ? 
A.  When  we  went  to  the  public-house,  a  naggin  of  whiskey  was 
called  for ;  we  went  into  a  back  parlour.  Brady  told  Weldon,  he 
should  go  for  Flood,  who  promised  to  meet  them. 

(By  the  Court.) — Do  you  mean  that,  Brady  would  go  for  Flood? 
A.  Yes,  that  he,  Brady,  would  go  for  Flood. 

Q.  Did  he  mention  his  Christian  name  ?  A.  Xo,  my  lord,  he  did 
not. 

Q.  Did  Flood  come  ?  A.  Weldon  desired  Brady  not  to  be  long. 
After  some  time  a  little  boy  came  in,  and  told  Weldon  his  supper  was 
ready.     Weldon  said  that  was  his  little  boy,  his  son. 

Q.  What  happened  next  ?     A.  Weldon  went  to  get  his  supper. 

Q.  Did  Weldon  return  after?  A.  Brady  returned  fii'St,  and  Clayton 
along  with  him. 

(By  the  Jury.) — You  were  left  al  ^ne  then  ?     A.  Except  Kennedy. 

Q.  Did  Weldon  return  after  any  interval  ?     A.  He  did,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  after  ?     A.  In  about  a  quarter  of  an  hour. 

Q.  When  he  returned,  what  happened  ?  A.  After  he  sat  down, 
and  took  a  glass  of  punch,  he  said,  "  We  had  better  make  these  two." 


THE    DEFENDERS.  321 

Q.  Who  did  he  mean  ?  A.  Me,  and  Clayton  : — Brady  asked  him 
if  he  liad  a  prayer-book  ?  "Weldon  said  he  had. 

.  Q.  Did  he  take  out  a  prayer-book  ?     A.  He  did,  and  laid  it  upon 
the  table. 

Q.  What  happened  after  the  book  was  produced  ?  A.  He  pulled 
out  some  papers  and  desired  Clayton  and  me  to  take  hold  of  the 
prayer-book  in  our  right  hands. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  conversation  particularly  relative  to  the 
object  of  s^vearing  ?     A.  Xot  before  he  put  the  oath. 

Q.  Were  you  told  the  purpose  for  which  the  oath  was  given  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Were  you  infoinned  of  it  before  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  were  brought  to  Weldon  to  be  sworn  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  He  administered  the  oath  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  How  did  it  begin  ?     A.  It  began,  "  I,  A.  B." 

Q.  You  have  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  the  paper  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?     A.  He  said  it  was  a  test. 

Q.   Should  you  know  the  paper  again  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

[Here  a  paper  was  produced,  beginning  I,  A.  B.,  &q.,  which  the 
witness  said  was  the  same  paper  he  had  seen  with.  Weldon.] 

Q.  You  were  sworn  to  the  contents  of  that  paper  ? 

Mr.  CcRRAX. — I  object  to  this  as  a  leading  question — Were  you 
sworn  to  the  contents  of  that  paper  ?  Wliat  is  the  answer,  but  I  was, 
or  I  was  not  ? 

Mr.  Solicitor-Generai, You  say  you  were  sworn  to  that  paper  ? 

A.  I  was  to  two. 

Q.  Is  this  one  of  them  ?     A.  It  is. 

Q.  Shew  him  the  other — is  that  the  other  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

[The  paper  beginning  I,  A.  B.,  was  then  read.      Vid.  Indictment,] 

Mr.  M'Xallt. — I  object  to  this  paper  going  in  evidence  to  the 
jury,  on  account  of  a  variance  between  it  and  the  indictment,  the  oath 
in  the  indictment  is  "  I,  William  Lawler."     This  paper  is  I,  A.  B. 

Mr.  Solicitor-Gexeral. — How  were  you  sworn  to  that  paper? — 
Did  you  pronounce  your  name  ?     A.  Yes  :   "  I,  William  Lawler." 

[The  second  paper,  called  the  Catechism,  was  then  read.      Vid.  the 

Indictment.] 

Q.  After  you  were  sworn,  what  happened  next  ?  A.  After  I  was 
sworn  to  these  papers  ? 

Q.  Yes  :  what  happened  ?  A.  Brady  asked  him  if  he  knew  of  any 
man  to  head  them  when  thev  were  to  rise  ?  Weldon  said,  there  was 
one  in  the  north,  but  did  not  mention  his  name. 

Q.  Had  you  any  further  conversation  ?  Remember  such  as  you 
can.  A.  He  told  us  after,  that  before  the  time  there  would  be  letters 
sent  through  the  countiy  to  tell  them  when  they  were  to  rise. 

Q.  What  further  happened  ?  A.  He  was  asked  in  what  manner 
every  one  would  become  acquainted  with  it,  or  how  would  they  get  to 
know  it  ? 

Q.  By  whom  was  he  asked  ?     A.  I  believe  by  Kennedy. 

Q  You  are  sure  the  question  was  asked  ?  A.  Yes :  the  question 
was  asked. 

Y 


322  TRIALS     OF 

Q.  What  answer  did  Weldon  make  ?  A.  He  said  the  committee- 
men would  acquaint  them. 

Q.  "What  further  happened  upon  that  occasion  ?  A.  Nothing  I 
believe  of  any  consequence. 

Q.  At  that  meeting  ?     A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  got  no  instructions  of  any  kind  ?  A.  Weldon  was  to  tell 
Brady  of  any  meeting  of  Defenders. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Did  Weldon  tell  Brady  so  ?  A.  Yes,  my  lord; 
he  said  he  believed  there  would  be  a  meeting  in  the  next  week  in 
Thomas-street  of  Defenders,  but  did  not  mention  the  particular  place,  j 

Q.  You  have  sworn  to  two  papers,  which  have  been  read,  had  you 
any  opportunity  of  seeing  these  papers  at  any  other  time  and  with 
whom  ?     A.  I  saw  them  with  Kennedy  afterwards. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Weldon  say  anything  of  them  ?  A.  Weldon 
told  me  he  would  give  these  papers  to  Brady  before  he  left  town. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Did  he  say  he  was  leaving  town  ?  A.  Yes, 
my  lord,  to  go  to  Cork. 

Q.  Had  you  any  intimation  from  anybody  then  present  of  any 
meeting  to  be  had  ?     A.  Brady  of  a  Sunday  brought  me  to  a  meeting. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Did  Weldon  say  for  what  purpose  he  would 
leave  the  papers  ?  A.  He  did  not.  He  told  us  the  signs  so  as  to 
know  a  Defender. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  and  the  Court  what  the  signs  were?  A.  Weldon 
said,  suppose  you  happen  to  be  in  company  and  want  to  know  a 
Defender,  the  sign  is  to  put  the  two  hands  joined  backAvards  upon 
the  top  of  the  head,  and  pretend  to  yawn,  then  draw  the  hands  down 
upon  your  knee  or  upon  the  table.  Then  the  other  answers,  by 
drawing  the  right  hand  over  the  forehead  and  returning  it  upon  the 
back  of  the  left  hand.  The  person  in  answer  or  reply  to  that  draws 
the  left  hand  across  the  forehead,  and  returns  it  to  the  back  of  the 
right  hand.  Upon  shaking  hands,  they  pressed  the  thumb  of  the 
right  hand  upon  the  back  of  the  left,  and  not  to  be  afraid  to  hurt  the 
person,  and  if  they  asked  what  was  the  pass-word  "  Eliphismatis." 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  anything  else  ?     A.  No,  he  did  not. 

Q.  I  observe  in  that  oath,  there  is  a  sentence  to  be  true  to  George 
the  Third,  was  there  any  conversation  about  that  ?  A.  At  the  time 
he  finished  it  and  we  kissed  the  book,  he  asked  if  we  liked  it  ? — We 
said  we  did.  He  turned  about,  and  looked  to  Brady,  who  said,  "  They 
knew  what  they  came  here  for."     "  I  told  them  before  they  came." 

Q.  Did  anybody  at  that  time  talk  about  the  words  George  the 
Third  in  the  oath  ? 

Court That  is  a  leading  question. 

Q.  Was  there  any  conversation  about  the  oath  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — That  is  not  a  way  in  which  to  put  a  question  in  a 
case  of  life. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General — I  will  argue  it,  if  the  court  have  any 
doubt,  and  assign  my  reasons. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  say  a  leading  question  is  not  to  be  put,  and  a 
question  to  which  the  answer  is  "  yes,"  or  "  no,"  is  a  leading  question. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — A  leading  question  is  that  which  sug- 
gests the  answer.  Now  if  he  answer  "  yes  "  to  this  question,  and  stop 
there,  that  will  not  do  ;  this  question  then  does  not  suggest  the  answer. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  323 

Q.  "What  did  he  say  ?  A.  He  said,  laughing,  "  that  if  the  King's 
head  were  off  to-morrow  morning  we  were  no  longer  under  his 
government," 

Q.  Was  that  explaining  the  oath  ?  A.  The  test  that  he  put  first. 
I  asked  him,  was  he  not  afraid  of  keeping  these  papers  about  him  in 
consequence  of  being  in  the  horse — he  said,  no ;  for  they  were  never 
searched — but  he  did  not  care  who  saw  the  first  paper,  for  the  small 
paper  was  the  principal.  The  first  paper,  he  said,  was  only  a  cloak 
for  the  army. 

Q.  Did  he  say  why  ?  A.  On  account  of  swearing  them  to  be  true 
to  the  King.  He  said,  he  had  sworn  several  of  them,  and  that  they 
would  have  some  objection  to  part  of  it,  but  for  that  clause. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Was  it  to  reconcile  them  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Weldon  said  he  would  hand  over  the  papers  to  Brady  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  them  afterwards  ?     A.  With  Kennedy. 

Q.  When  ?     A.  About  a  fortnight  after  Weldon  went  out  of  town. 

Q.  How  came  they  into  Kennedy's  hands  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Did  you  know  them  ?  A.  I  challenged  them  at  a  place  in 
Drury-lane — Murphy  lived  in  Chui'ch-street ;  he  and  I  were  together, 
and  I  said 

Mr.  M'Nal,l,y  objected  to  this  evidence,  and  the  witness  was  stopped 
by  the  court. 

Q.  Did  Brady  ever  give  you  any  intimation  of  any  other  meeting  ? 
A.  He  brought  me  to  one  in  Plunket-street. 

Q.  To  a  meeting  of  what  ?     A.  Of  Defenders. 

Q.  Were  any  of  the  same  persons  present  that  were  with  Weldon  ? 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — When  was  this  ?     A.  I  cannot  recollect. 

Q.  Who  was  at  that  meeting  ?  A.  Kennedy  was  along  with  me 
at  the  same  time. 

Q.  There  were  a  good  many  there  ?  A.  There  was  a  good  many 
there. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  done  at  that  assembly  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAX. — Do  the  counsel  think  that  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Solicitor-General — I  do. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — What !  aflfect  a  man's  life  by  what  was  done  at 
meetings,  when  he  was  an  hundred  miles  off"! 

Mr.  Solicitor-General I  think  it  evidence,  though  the  counsel 

asks  the  question  with  some  astonishment.  It  is  a  rule  of  .law,  settled 
in  a  variety  of  cases,  and  recognized  in  the  very  last,  that  it  being 
once  established  that  the  prisoner  belonged  to  a  society 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain We  ai-e  of  opinion  that  this  is  evi- 
dence, that  there  is  a  foundation  laid  for  it,  by  swearing  that  Weldon 
said,  there  were  to  be  subsequent  meetings,  and  that  they  should  have 
notice  of  them  from  Brady  ;  that  is  a  foundation  to  let  in  evidence  of 
what  is  done  at  those  meetings. 

Q.  What  happened  at  that  subsequent  meeting  ?  A.  They  were 
putting  down  money  on  the  table,  and  I  was  asked  for  sixpence,  as  a 
collection  for  powder 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Who  asked  you  ?  A.  Brady  desired  me  to  put 
down  sixpence,  I  told  Brady  I  had  not  sixpence.  Kennedy  said  he 
would  lend  me  one — He  gave  me  a  shilling ;  I  laid  down  the  shilling 
and  took  up  sixpence  and  gave  it  to  Kennedy.     I  was  told,  that  a 


324  TRIALS    OF 

man  of  the  name  of  Locldngton  then  in  the  room  was  a  captain  of 
Defenders. 

Q.  What  else  happened  ?  What  powder  did  you  mean  ?  A.  G-un- 
powder.  I  understood  from  them,  that  they  wanted  powder,  as  they 
were  going  out  to  get  arms,  but  not  that  night. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  from  the  company  for  what  they  wanted 
the  arms  ?     A.  They  did  not  say. 

Mr.  Baron  George. — His  conclusion,  or  his  opinion  is  not  evidence ; 
but  ask  him  as  to  facts  done,  or  the  conversations  held. 

Q.  Did  anything  more  pass  ?  A.  I  understood  there  was  to  be  a 
meeting.  Brady  and  Kennedy  both  told  me  there  was  to  be  a  meeting 
after  that. 

Q.  Where  did  they  tell  you  that  ?     A.  At  the  meeting. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  of  that  company  at  any  other  place  and  where  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  At  Stoneybatter,  the  corner  of  Arbour-hill. 

Q.  Who  gave  you  notice  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  You  saw  the  same  company  ?  A.  Some  of  them,  Hart,  Leary, 
Cooke  and  others. 

Mr.  Baron  George. — Unless  he  got  notice  from  Brady  who  was 
the  person  authorized  it  is  not  evidence. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Brady  or  Kennedy  afterwards  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  At  their  own  place  in  Stephen-street. 

Q.  Were  Brady  and  Kennedy  at  Stoneybatter?     A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Of  what  people  was  the  subsequent  meeting  ?    A.  Of  Defenders. 

Mr.  CuRRAN The  court  desired  you  not  to  give  evidence  of  that. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General. — I  hope  the  court  have  laid  down  no 
rule  upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  Baron  George — We  think  you  have  not  laid  any  foundation 
for  the  meeting  at  Stoneybatter. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General. — My  lords,  I  submit  this  is  evidence. 
Upon  all  occasions  Avhere  the  proceedings  of  any  society  are  let  in, 
all  their  acts  are  thereby  made  evidence.  And  so  it  was  in^the  State 
trials  lately,  respecting  the  London  Corresponding  Society,  and  their 
conduct  was  evidence  of  overt  acts.  I  have  established  the  fact,  that 
there  was  a  meeting  of  a  body  of  men  called  Defenders  :  this  man  was 
admitted  into  them,  and  the  evidence  goes  to  shew  that  subsequent 
meetings  under  the  same  appellation  and  obligation  did  assemble, 
and  did  certain  acts  which  will  illusti-ate  the  charge  against  the 
prisoner. 

Mr.  Baron  George — I  do  not  say,  whether  they  may  not  be  evi- 
dence ;  but  I  think  you  have  not  yet  laid  a  foundation  to  let  in  evidence 
of  the  meeting  at  Stoneybatter. 

Q.  You  saw  the  oath  aftei'wards  in  Kennedy's  hands,  upon  what 
occasion  ?     A.  Upon  a  meeting  with  Murphy. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  At  Drury-lane  in  a  woi'kshop. 

Q.  You  said  there  were  certain  signs  communicated  by  Weldon  by 
which  a  Defender  might  be  known  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  made  use  of  upon  any  occasion  and  where  ? 
A.  Hart  has  asked  me  if 

Mr.  M'Nally  objected  to  this  conversation  as  not  having  been  at 
a  meeting. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  325 

Witness — Nobody  is  brought  to  a  meeting  unless  introduced  by  a 
person  who  is  a  member. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — What  do  you  mean  by  that  ?  A.  There  must 
be  some  person  in  the  place  who  will  know  him. 

Q.  Know  him  to  be  what  ?     A.  A  Defender. 

Q.  Somebody  went  with  you  to  Stoneybatter  ?     A.  Yes :  Walsh. 

Q.  Who  is  he.     A.  A  tailor. 

Q.  Was  he  at  the  former  meeting  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  him?  A.  As  being  of  the  Philanthropic 
Society  ? 

Q.  Was  he  a  Defender?     A.  He  was  from  the  signs  he  used. 

Q.  What  Walsh  is  he  ?     A.  A  tailor  in  Fishamble-street. 

Q.  Did  you  know  any  other  person  by  the  signs  ?  A.  Hart  and  Cooke. 

Q.  Were  they  of  the  meeting  at  Stoneybatter  ?  A.  Yes  ;  and  one 
Leary,  a  shoemaker. 

Q,  (By  the  Court.) — Did  you  see  them  make  the  signs  ?  A.  Cooke 
came  out  of  a  place  where  he  held  a  school  in  Stoneybatter  and  shook 
me  by  the  hand  as  a  Defender. 

Q.  Was  the  meeting  at  Cooke's  house  ?     A.  Not  as  I  know  of. 

Q.  Where  was  the  meeting  at  Stoneybatter  ?  A.  At  Mm-phy's — 
an  inn  where  cars  set  up. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Was  Cooke  at  the  meeting  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  else  ?     A.  Walsh  and  Hart. 

Q.  Did  they  all  make  the  signs  ?  A.  Not  there  :  they  did  at 
diiferent  times. 

Q.  Am  I  to  understand,  that  you  frequented  these  meetings  as  a 
Defender  yourself  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  continue  to  be  a  Defender  ?  A.  I  cannot 
rightly  tell. 

Q.  Can't  you  say  how  long  ?     A.  I  believe  about  three  months. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — What  were  the  signs  made  use  of  at  Stoney- 
batter ?     A.  Shaking  the  hands. 

Q.  Anything  else  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  How  did  you  shake  the  hands  ?  A.  By  pressing  the  thumb 
upon  the  hand. 

Q.  In  the  manner  Weldon  had  told  ?     A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — Now  we  think  there  is  a  foundation 
laid  to  let  in  the  proceedings  there. 

Q.  What  were  the  proceedings  ?  A.  Hart  brought  in  a  young  man 
and  swore  him.     I  saw  him  lay  a  small  paper  upon  a  book. 

Q.  What  kind  of  swearing  was  it  that  was  made  use  of?  A.  I  do 
not  know.  He  told  him  he  was  brought  to  be  sworn  to  be  a  Defender ; 
he  was  not  inclined  to  be  sworn  at  first.  Hart  said  he  was  to  become 
a  Defender,  as  the  object  was  to  get  arms  to  assist  the  French  when 
they  would  come. 

Q.  Was  that  man  sworn  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  the  same  way  that  you  were  ?     A.  He  told  him  the  signs. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  shewn  to  him  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  (By  the  Coui't Did  you  see  him  sworn  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  In  the  same  manner  as  before  ?  A.  I  cannot  say.  There  was 
a  small  paper  laid  upon  a  book  :  I  was  near  the  door  and  could  not 
get  near  him,  there  being  many  in  the  room  and  it  a  small  one.) 


326  TRIALS     Ol 

Q.  You  say  you  continued  a  Defender  three  months  ?  A.  I  did,  I 
believe. 

Q.  What  induced  you  to  cease  being  a  Defender — did  you  tell 
anybody  you  were  a  Defender  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  To  whom  ?  A.  To  Mr.  Cowan  in  Grafton-street,  after  there 
was  a  meeting  in  Drury-lane  at  one  Nolan's. 

Q.  Who  were  at  that  meeting  ?  A.  Hart,  Cooke,  Dry,  Turner, 
Lockington,  Kennedy,  Flood,  and  Coffey. 

Q.  What  was  done  there  ?  A.  We  met  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
arms. 

Q.  It  was  soon  after  that  meeting  you  told  Mr.  Cowan  ?  A.  On 
the  Monday. 

Q.  Why  did  you  tell  him  ?  A.  On  account  of  what  I  heard  Hart 
declare. 

Q.  What  was  that  declaration  ?  A.  He  tapped  me  on  the  shoulder, 
and  I  followed  him  to  a  window.  He  asked  me  if  Dry  and  Coffey 
were  not  Protestants ;  I  said  I  believed  they  were  ;  he  said  he  would 
not  sit  in  company  with  them.  ^^ 

Q.  Was  this  said  aloud  ?     A.  No  it  was  not. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General — Then  I  have  no  right  to  ask  it. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  said  aloud  ?  A.  They  said  they  would 
meet  on  the  Sunday  following,  but  I  could  not  hear  rightly  what 
passed  from  attending  to  Hart.  We  were  called  to  order  twice  for 
being  from  the  company. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  pass?  A.  Coffey  Avas  in  the  chair, 
and  wanted  to  know  how  many  Defenders  there  were  in  Dublin, 
that  there  might  be  officers  put  over  them,  that  they  might  be  all 
ready. 

Q.  You  mentioned  before,  that  there  was  a  conversation  about 
subscribing  for  powder  ;  was  there  any  conversation  upon  a  subsequent 
meeting  upon  that  subject?     A.  Not  about  taking  arms. 

Q.  At  Drury-lane  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Where,  then  ?     A.  At  Stoneybatter. 

Q.  What  did  you  hear  there  ?  A.  I  heard  Hart  desire  some  of 
them  to  go  home  for  pistols  and  arms,  that  they  might  go  out  to  take 
arms  that  night. 

Q.  To  whom  did  he  say  that  ?  A.  To  the  company — at  the  house 
where  the  young  lad  was  made  a  Defender ;  and  after  sitting  some 
time  and  the  others  not  returning,  he  thought  they  would  not  come 
back  ;  he  then  desired  every  one  remaining  to  lay  their  hands  upon 
the  table,  and  swear  on  their  oaths  to  appear  there  on  the  Monday 
following  with  pistols  to  go  get  arms. 

Q.  What  oath  did  he  mean  ?  A.  The  Defender's  oath  that  they 
had  taken.  Hart  was  a  committee-man  it  was  said,  and  any  person 
obliged  to  attend  him  when  required. 

Q.  You  saw  Hart  exercise  the  office  of  a  committee-man  by  swear- 
ing another  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — Did  Hart  himself  say  he  was  a  committee-man  ? 
A.  No,  he  did  not.) 

Q.  You  heard  no  other  conversation  at  that  meeting  ?  A.  In  about 
half  an  hour  after,  I  said  I  would  go  home — Walsh  came  out  and 
said 


THE   DEFENDERS.  327 

[Counsel  for  the  prisoner  objected  to  this  evidence  as  private 

conversation.] 

Q.  Why  did  you  cease  to  be  one  of  the  body  ?  A.  In  consequence 
of  what  Hart  declared. 

[This  was  also  objected  to.] 

Q.  You  say  there  was  to  be  a  rising  and  somebody  would  head 
them  in  the  north,  whom  Weldon  did  not  name  ?     A.  So  he  said. 

Q.  Did  Brady  say  anything  about  the  same  subject  ?  A.  No,  he 
did  not. 

Q.  Was  the  motive  of  the  rising  mentioned  at  the  time  ?  A.  It 
was,  he  said  there  would  be  letters  sent. 

Q.  But  Avhat  was  the  motive  ?     A.  He  did  not  say  for  what  it  was. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Curran. 

Q.  What  religion  are  you  of?     A.  A  Protestant. 

Q.  Have  you  always  been  a  Protestant  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  always  professed  that  religion  ?  A.  Except  when  I 
was  asked  what  religion  I  was  among  the  Defenders,  I  said  I  was  a 
Roman,  in  consequence  of  what  Brady  said  to  me. 

Q.  You  are  not,  sir,  upon  a  cross-examination  under  colour  of  an 
answer  to  give  illegal  evidence.  I  ask  you,  except  in  the  case  you 
mention  now,  have  you  always  professed  the  Protestant  religion? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  know  the  principles  and  grounds  of  what  that 
religion  are  ?  A.  I  was  brought  up  to  be  a  Protestant,  and  do  not 
like  to  change. 

Q.  Were  you  taught  to  believe  that  there  was  a  God  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  taught  that  there  was  the  suffering  of  his  Son  for  the 
redemption  of  mankind  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  that  your  belief  of  these  sacred  doctrines  is 
the  foundation  of  the  oath  you  have  taken  ?  A.  When  I  had  taken 
the  oath  ? 

Q.  I  ask  you  is  it  the  foundation  of  the  obligation  of  your  oath  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  never,  upon  any  occasion,  declared  that  you  did  not 
believe  there  was  a  God  ? 

The  witness  hesitated  some  time. 

Mr.  Attorney-General I  do  not  know  what  the  consequence 

of  the  question  may  be,  but  it  exposes  the  man  to  punishment. 

Mr.  M'Naely I  am  prepared  to  shew  that  this  question  is  legal. 

Mr.  Curran. — Since  the  question  is  objected  to,  I  will  not  press  it. 
I  will  not  ask  you  whether  you  have  deliberately  denied  the  existence 
of  a  God,  since  this  protection  is  put  about  you,  I  am  sure  it  is  neces- 
sary for  you. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  did  feel  that  it  was  a  question  which 
ought  not  to  be  put ;  I  have  no  reason  to  conclude  what  his  answer 
would  be. 

Mr.  Curran After  this  kind  of  argument,  I  feel  a  sort  of  inde- 
corum in  pressing  it. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant If  this  sort  of  use  be  made  of  the  question, 

the  court  will  detei-mine  upon  it. 


2S  TRIALS   OF 


^m 


Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain It'  he  be  exjx>sed  to  temporal  punish- 
ment, he  is  not  bound  to  answer. 

Mr.  CrRRAN — It  would  be  a  different  thing,  and  a  man  might  say 
it  was  mv  misfortune  to  be  converted  by  arsument  of  Atheists.     He 
might  have  read  Hume  upon  Miracles,  and  adopted  his  notions.     But 
I  do  not  press  it. 

Q.  You  have  said  that  Kennedy  and  Brady  brought  you  to  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Had  you  known  liim  before  ?     A.  Never. 

Q.  You  said,  as  you  discovered  their  piu-poses,  you  discontinued  ? 
A.  After  what  I  heard  fi-om  Hart.  I  went  to  Mr.  Cowan  and  told 
him. 

Q.  After  the  conversation  with  Hart,  you  told  Mr.  Cowan  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  that  not  a  conversation  in  which  he  communicated  the  bad 
purposes  of  the  meetings  ?  A.  I  did  not  like  the  idea  of  masjjaci-eing 
all  the  Protestants. 

Q.  "Was  it  by  Hart,  that  idea  was  communicated  to  you  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  as  soon  as  that  was  communicated  to  you,  you  formed  the 
design  of  quitting  them  ?     A.  Of  telling  what  I  heard. 

Q.  Wheu  was  the  tirst  time  you  knew  of  their  bad  designs  ?  A.  1 
knew  if  they  were  to  rise,  that  some  persons  were  to  be  destroyed ; 
but  I  did  not  think  they  would  destroy  aU  the  Pix'>testanrs. 

Q.  "When  did  you  tirst  undei-stand  that  any  design  of  tliis  kind 
existed  ?     A.  From  the  meetings  I  used  to  go  to. 

Q.  How  Ions  after  "Weldon  had  sone  to  Cork  ?     A.  That  I  told  ? 

Q.  That  you  knew  of  any  persons  being  to  be  destroyed  ?  A.  I 
knew  at  that  meeting  when  Weldon  was  present. 

Q.  How  long  after  "Weldon's  going  to  Cork  was  it,  that  you  had 
this  conversation  with  Hart  ?     A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Compute  ?     A.  I  may  think  wrong. 

Q.  Think  of  it  ?  A.  I  know  the  day  of  the  month  Hai't  told  me, 
but  I  do  not  know  the  day  of  the  month  "Weldon  went  out  of  the 
town. 

Q.  It  was  some  time  after,  however  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  Weldon  said  there  was  to  be  some  meeting  ?  A.  He  said  he 
believed  there  would  be  a  meeting  in  Thomas-street,  and  when  there 
was,  he  would  acquaint  Brady,  and  Brady  would  acquaint  us. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  soon  after  that  Weldon  went  to  Cork  ?  A. 
I  do  not, 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  before  the  next  meeting  he  went  away  ? 
A.  I  cannot  tell  exactly  ;  it  might  be  a  week  or  a  fortnight. 

Q.  He  had  gone  to  Cork  bofore  ?     A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  "Who  gave  you  notice  of  it  ?  A.  I  was  with  Brady  and  Ken- 
nedy and  they  brought  me  there. 

Q.  Did  Brady  say  Weldon  desired  him  to  bring  you  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ?  A.  He  said  there  was  a  meeting  of  De- 
fenders in  Plimket-street,  and  asked  me  to  go  there. 

Q.  He  did  not  say  Weldon  desired  hiui  to  bring  you  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  said  there  was  no  mention  at  the  meeting  in  Plimket-street 
of  the  French — that  was  not  until  the  meeting  at  Stoneybatter  ? 
A.  It  was  at  the  meeting  at  JStoncybaiter. 


THE    DKFENDKUS.  329 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  distance  of  time  between  the  meeting  in 
Phuiket-street  and  at  Stoneybatter  ?     A.  I  cannot  tell. 

(.1.  I  do  not  mean  the  day  of  the  month  ;  nor  what  month  it  was? 
A.  1  cannot  tell  tlie  time. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  speeches  at  Plunket-street  ?     A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  secretary  there  taking  down  notes  ?  A.  Not  as 
I  saw. 

C^.  Was  there  any  chairman  putting  questions  ?  A.  There  Avas  a 
man  at  the  opposite  side  of  the  table,  near  the  grate,  and  he  put  down 
money  upon  the  table,  which  he  had  collected — he  said  it  was  a  sub- 
scription for  powder. 

Q.  The  next  meeting  was  where  ?     A.  At  Stoneybatter. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whom  you  saw  there  ?  A.  Hart,  Leary, 
Cooke  and  Walsh. 

Q.  These  were  all  you  recollect — Weldon  was  not  there  ?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  Then  there  was  no  person  at  Stoneybatter  who  was  present  at 
the  communication  with  Weldon  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Stoneybatter  was  the  first  place  you  heard  any  mention  of  the 
French  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  Recollect  yourself,  because  it  is  very  material ;  did  Weldon  tell 
you  that  any  part  was  to  be  taken  by  Cooke  ?  A.  He  never  men- 
tioned his  name. 

Q.  Nor  by  Hart  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  by  Walsh  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  That  you  are  clear  of?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  it  that  started  any  mention  about  the  French  ?  A. 
Hart. 

Q.  Did  he  address  himself  in  the  way  of  a  speech  to  the  chair  ? 
A.  There  was  no  person  appointed  in  the  place.  But  the  young  man 
was  brought  in  to  be  sworn  ;  he  appeared  shy  at  first  and  Hart  told 
him  the  motives  of  becoming  a  Defender. 

Q.  It  was  addressed  to  the  young  man  ?  A.  It  was,  but  we  were 
all  present  by. 

Q.  Did  any  one  else  join  in  it  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  He  said  we  might  get  arms  and  assist  the  French  and  no  other 
person  said  anything  upon  the  subject  ?     A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  your  evidence  comes  to  this : — That  the  only  mention 
made  about  the  French  was  at  Stoneybatter — that  Hart  said  it  to  the 
young  man  and  no  one  made  any  kind  of  reply.  Who  did  you 
understand  from  Brady  had  told  him  of  the  meeting  in  Plunket- 
street  ?  A.  I  was  walking  with  him  and  he  told  me  there  was  a 
meeting  there,  and  asked  to  go  there. 

Q.  Did  he  say  who  told  him  of  it  ?     A.  No,  sii\ 

Q.  I  suppose  you  are  perfectly  impressed  with  the  enormous  nature 
of  the  crime  of  making  an  attempt  upon  the  person  of  his  Majesty  ? 
A.  At  that  time  he  said  we  all  lived 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  as  to  that ;  but  did  you  not  conceive  it'to  be 
a  crime  to  make  an  attempt  upon  the  life  of  the  King  ?  A.^Not  at 
that  time. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  am  sorry  there  was  such  a  time — go  down, 
young  man. 


330  TBIALS     OF 

Q.  (By  the  Jury. — Do  you  now  think  it  an  enormous  crime  ?  A. 
I  certainly  do.) 

Oliver  Carleton,  Esq.  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  Sauriic. 

Q.  TSHiat  is  that  paper  in  your  hands  ?  A.  I  had  got  a  warrant 
from  Alderman  James  against  Brady,  Kennedy,  Walsh  and  Flood. 
The  Alderman  desired  me  to  send  for  my  officers — I  did  so,  and 
dispatched  them  to  different  parts.  I  went  myself  with  two  of  them 
to  Kennedy's  the  glass-man  in  Steven-street,  at  half-past  five  in  the 


morning 


Q.  You  were  at  that  time  in  a  public  office  ?  A.  Yes.  VTe 
knocked  at  the  door  some  time :  two  boys  came  down  at  a  back-door 
in  Druiy-lane  :  I  asked  them  their  names ;  they  said  Kennedy  and 
Brady :  I  took  them  into  custody.  I  had  been  desired  to  examine 
the  fob  of  Kennedy's  breeches,  and  I  woidd  find  there  the  oath  and  the  | 
catechism :  I  did  search  the  fob  and  found  them  both. 

Q.  Were   these  the  papers  (shewing  them  to  the  witness)?     A.    i 
These  are  the  papers. 

Q.  "What  was  then  done  with  Kennedy  ?  A.  I  took  him  and  Brady 
into  custody  and  brought  them  to  the  castle  guard. 

Q.  What  became  of  Kennedy  ?  A.  I  saw  him  in  Newgate  some 
time  ago. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Naxly. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Lawler  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  him 
at  all. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  anything  of  him  ?  A.  I  never  asked  any 
person  about  him  ;  nor  ever  heard  anything  about  him. 

Q.  You  know  nothing  of  Weldou  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Who  informed  you,  that  you  would  find  these 
papers  upon  Kennedy  ?  A.  Alderman  James,  who  desired  me  to  be 
particular  in  searching  Kennedy,  for  I  would  find  them  in  his  breeches 
pocket. 

Q.  (By  the  Jury.) — Kennedy  is  a  boy  ?  A.  He  is  a  very  young 
man — so  is  Brady. 

Q.  What  age  may  he  be  ?  A.  I  am  a  very  bad  judge  of  the  age 
of  a  person. 

Case  rested  for  the  Crown. 

'Mr.  CuRRAN. — My  lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  am  of 
counsel  in  one  of  those  cases  in  which  the  humanity  of  our  law  is, 
very  fortunately,  joined  with  the  authority  and  wisdom  of  the  court 
in  alliance  with  me  for  the  purposes  of  legal  protection.  Gentlemen, 
I  cannot  however  but  regret,  that  that  sort  of  laudable,  and  amiable 
anxiety  for  the  public  tranquillity,  which  glows  warmest  iu  the  breasts 
of  the  best  men,  has  perhaps  induced  Mr.  Attorney-General  to  state 
some  facts  to  the  court  and  the  jury,  of  which  no  evidence  was 
attempted  to  be  given.  And  I  make  the  observation  only  for  this 
purpose,  to  remind  you  gentlemen,  that  the  statement  of  counsel  is 
not  evidence — to  remind  you,  that  you  are  to  give  a  verdict,  upon 
this  solemn  and  momentous  occasion,  founded  simply  upon  the 
evidence  which  has  been  given  to  you ;  for  such  is  the  oath  you  have 


THE    DEFEKDERS.  331 

taken.  Gentlemen,  I  make  the  observation,  not  only  in  ordei*  to  call 
upon  you  to  discliar<re  any  impressions,  not  supported  by  testimony, 
but  to  remind  you  also  of  another  incontrovertible  maxim,  not  only 
of  the  humane  law  of  England,  but  of  eternal  justice  upon  wliich 
that  is  founded — that  the  more  horrid  and  atrocious  the  nature  of  any 
crime  charged  upon  any  man  is,  the  more  clear  and  invincible  should 
be  the  evidence  upon  which  he  is  convicted.  The  charge  here  is  a 
charge  of  the  most  enormous  criminality,  that  the  law  of  any  country 
can  know — no  less  than  the  atrocious  and  diabolical  purpose  of  oflei*- 
ing  mortal  and  fatal  violence  to  the  person  of  the  Sovereign,  who 
ought  to  be  sacred.  The  prisoner  is  charged  with  entertaining  the 
guilty  purpose  of  destroying  all  order,  and  all  society,  for  the  well- 
being  of  wliich  the  person  of  the  King  is  held  sacred.  Therefore, 
gentlemen,  I  presume  to  tell  you,  that  in  proportion  as  the  crime  is 
atrocious  and  horrible,  in  the  same  proportion  ought  the  evidence  to 
convict,  be  clear  and  irresistible.  Let  me  therefore  endeavour  to 
discharge  the  duty  I  owe  to  the  unfortunate  man  at  the  bar,  (for 
unfortunate  I  consider  him  whether  he  be  convicted  or  acquitted,) 
by  di'awing  your  attention  to  a  consideration  of  the  facts  charged, 
and  comparing  it  with  the  evidence  adduced  to  support  it. 

The  charge,  gentlemen,  is  of  two  kinds — two  species  of  treason — 
founded  upon  the  statute  25  Ed.  III.  One  is,  compassing  the  King's 
death.  The  other  is  a  distinct  treason — that  of  adhei'ing  to  the  King's 
enemies.  In  both  cases,  the  criminality  must  be  clearly  established, 
under  the  words  of  the  statute,  by  having  the  guilty  man  convicted 
of  the  offence  by  provable  evidence  of  overt  acts.  Even  in  the  case 
and  it  is  the  only  one,  where  by  law  the  imagination  shall  complete 
the  crime,  there  that  guilt  must  be  proved,  and  can  be  provable  only 
by  outAvard  acts,  made  use  of  by  the  criminal  for  the  effectuation  of 
his  guilty  pm-pose.  The  overt  acts  stated  here  are,  that  he  associated 
with  traitors  unknown,  with  the  design  of  assisting  the  French,  at 
war  with  our  government,  and  therefore  a  public  enemy.  2dly, 
consulting  with  others  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  the  French.  3dly, 
consulting  with  other  traitors  to  subvert  the  government.  4thly,  asso- 
ciating with  Defenders  to  subvert  the  Protestant  religion.  5thly, 
enlisting  a  person  stated  in  the  indictment  to  assist  the  French  and 
administering  an  oath  to  him  for  that  purpose.  6thly,  enlisting  him 
to  adhere  to  the  French.  Ttlily,  corrupting  Lawler  to  become  a 
Defender.  8thly,  enlisting  him  by  administering  an  oath,  for  similar 
purposes.  In  order  to  wari'ant  a  verdict  convicting  the  prisoner, 
there  must  be  clear  and  convincing  evidence  of  some  one  of  these 
overt  acts,  as  they  are  laid.  The  law  requires  that  there  should  be 
stated  upon  record,  such  an  act  as  in  point  of  law  will  amount  to  an 
overt  act  of  the  treason  charged,  as  matter  of  evidence,  and  the  evi- 
dence adduced  must  correspond  with  the  fact  charged.  The  unifonn 
rule  which  extends  to  every  case  applies  to  this,  that  whether  the  fact 
charged  be  sustained  by  evidence  is  for  the  conscience  and  the  oath 
of  the  jmy,  according  to  the  degree  of  credit  they  give  to  the  testi- 
mony of  it.  In  treason,  the  overt  act  must  sustain  the  crime,  and  the 
evidence  must  go  to  support  the  overt  act  so  stated.  If  this  case 
were  tried  at  the  other  side  of  the  water,  it  does  not  strike  me,  that 
the    very  irrelevant    evidence  given  by    Mr.    Cax'leton   coidd  have 


332  TRIALS     OF 

supplied  what  the  law  requires ;  the  concurring  testimony  of  two 
witnesses.  I  cannot  be  considered,  indeed  I  should  be  sorry,  to  put 
any  sort  of  comparison  between  the  person  of  Mr.  Carleton  and  the 
first  witness  who  was  called  upon  the  table.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
you  have  an  important  province  indeed — the  life  and  death  of  a  man 
to  decide  upon.  But  previous  to  that  you  must  consider,  what  degree 
of  credit  ought  to  be  given  to  a  man  under  the  circumstances  of  that 
witness  produced  against  the  prisoner.  It  does  appear  to  me,  that  his 
evidence  merits  small  considei-ation  in  point  of  credibility.  But  even 
if  he  were  as  deserving  of  belief  as  the  witness  that  followed,  and 
that  his  evidence  were  as  credible  as  the  other's  was  immaterial,  I 
shall  yet  rely  confidently,  that  every  word  if  believed  does  leave  the 
accusation  unsupported.  Grentlemen,  I  will  not  affront  the  idea  which 
ought  to  be  entertained  of  you,  by  warning  you  not  to  be  led  away 
by  those  phantoms  which  have  been  created  by  prejudice,  and  applied 
to  adorn  the  idle  tales  drunk  down  by  folly,  and  belched  up  by 
malignity.  You  are  sensible  that  you  are  discharging  the  greatest 
duty  that  law  and  religion  can  repose  in  you,  and  I  am  satisfied  you 
will  discard  your  passions,  and  that  your  verdict  will  be  founded,  not 
upon  passion  or  prejudice,  but  upon  your  oaths  and  upon  justice. 
Consider  what  the  evidence  in  point  of  fact  is — Lawler  was  brought 
by  Brady  and  Kennedy  to  Weldon,  the  prisoner,  in  Barrack-street ; 
what  Brady  said  to  him  before,  if  it  had  been  of  moment  in  itself,  I 
do  not  conceive,  can  possibly  be  extended  to  him,  who  did  not  assent 
to  the  words  and  was  not  present  when  they  were  uttered.  Lawler 
was  carried  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  to  be  sworn;  and  here  give  me 
leave  to  remind  you,  what  was  the  evidence — to  remind  you  that  the 
expressions  proved  do  not  bear  that  illegal  import  which  real  or 
affected  loyalty  would  attach  to  them,  and  therefore  you  Avill  discharge 
all  that  cant  of  enthusiasm  from  your  minds.  I  wish  that  I  were  so 
cii'cumstanced  as  to  be  entitled  to  an  answer,  when  I  ask  Mr.  Attor- 
ney-General, what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  Defender  ?  I  wish  I 
were  at  liberty  to  appeal  to  the  sober  understanding  of  any  man  for 
the  meaning  of  that  tremendous  word.  I  am  not  entitled  to  put  the 
question  to  the  counsel  or  the  court — but  I  am  entitled  to  call  upon 
the  wise  and  grave  consideration  of  the  court  to  say,  whether  the 
zeal  of  public  accusation  has  affixed  any  definite  meaning  to  the 
word  ?  I  would  be  glad  to  know,  Avhether  that  expression,  which  is 
annexed  to  the  title  of  the  highest  magistrate,  marking  his  highest 
obligation  and  styling  him  the  Defender  of  the  religion  of  the 
country,  in  common  parlance  acquii'ed  any  new  combination,  carrying 
with  it  a  crime,  when  applied  to  any  other  man  in  the  community  ? 
Let  me  warn  you,  therefore,  against  that  sort  of  fallacious  lexico- 
graphy which  forms  new  words,  that  undergoing  the  examination  of 
political  slander  or  intemperate  zeal,  are  considered  as  having  a  knoAvn 
acceptation.  What  is  the  word?  A  word  that  should  be  discarded, 
when  it  is  sought  to  aflix  to  it  another  meaning  than  that  which  it 
bears  in  the  cases  where  it  is  used.  Let  me  remind  you  that  a 
Defender,  or  any  other  term  used  to  denote  any  confraternity,  club, 
or  society,  like  any  other  word,  is  arbitraiy,  but  the  meaning  should 
be  explicit.  And  therefore  with  regard  to  this  trial,  you  are  to  reject 
the  word  as  having  no  meaning,  unless  from  the  evidence  you  find. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  333 

it  has  in  the  mind  of  the  party  a  definite  explication  ;  for  observe 
that  the  witness  such  as  he  is — such  as  he  was,  witli  all  his  zeal  for 
the  furtherance  of  justice,  which  he  was  once  ready  to  violate  by  the 
massacre  of  his  fellow  subjects — with  all  his  anxiety  for  his  Sove- 
reign's safety,  whom  he  was  once  ready  to  assassinate,  he,  I  say,  has 
not  told  you,  that  either  Brady  or  Kennedy  or  any  other  pei'son, 
what  the  principles  were  that  denoted  a  Defender.  But  I  will 
not  rest  the  case  of  my  client  upon  that  ground :  no,  it  would  be  a 
foolish  kind  of  defence,  because  words  might  be  used  as  a  cloak  and 
therefore  might  be  colourably  introduced.  You,  gentlemen,  are  then 
to  consider  what  this  oath,  this  nonsensical  oath,  which  so  far  as  it  is 
intelligible  is  innocent,  and  so  far  as  it  is  nonsense,  can  prove  nothing, 
you  are  to  consider,  whether  innocent  and  nonsensical  as  it  may 
appear,  it  was  yet  a  cover  and  a  bond  for  treasonable  association.  It 
is  not  in  my  recollection,  that  any  evidence  Avas  given,  that  the  oath 
was  conceived  in  artfully  equivocal  expressions,  for  forming,  under 
the  sanction  of  loyal  language,  a  treasonable  association.  Is  one  of 
the  parties  laughing,  evidence,  that  it  was  treasonable,  or  the  bond 
of  a  criminal  confederation  ?  It  is  not.  Is  it  treasonable  to  say, 
"  that  were  the  King's  head  off  to-morrow,  the  allesiance  to  him 
would  be  at  an  end  ?"  It  is  not.  The  expressions  may  bring  a  man 
into  disrepute — to  lead  the  mind  of  a  jury  into  a  suspicion  of  the 
morality  of  the  man  who  used  them — ^but  nothing  more.  It  may  be 
asked  why  should  there  be  anything  insidious  ?  Why  but  to  cover  a 
treasonable  purpose  are  all  these  suspicious  circumstances  ?  It  is 
not  for  me,  nor  is  it  the  prisoner's  duty  to  account  for  them  in  defend- 
ing himself  against  this  charge  ;  because  circumstances  are  not  to 
render  innocence  doubtful,  but  it  is  full  proof  establishing  the  guilt 
and  the  treason  indubitably  which  the  law  requires.  Therefore  I 
submit  that  even  if  the  evidence  could  be  believed,  it  does  not  support 
the  overt  acts — was  there  a  word  of  violating  the  person  of  the 
King  ?  Any  affected  misrepresentation  or  any  abuse  of  government? 
Have  you  heard  a  word  stated  of  the  King,  not  being  an  amiable 
King  ?  Any  words  contumeliously  uttered  respecting  his  person — 
disrespectful  of  his  government — expressive  of  any  public  grievance 
to  be  removed,  or  good  to  be  attained?  Not  a  word  of  such  a  subject 
— nothing  of  the  kind  is  proved  by  this  solitaiy  witness  in  all  his 
accuracy  of  detail. 

Was  there  any  proposition  of  assisting  the  French  in  case  they 
invaded  this  kingdom  ?  To  support  that  charge  a  nonsensical  cate- 
chism is  produced.  There  it  is  asked,  "  Where  did  the  cock  crow 
when  all  the  world  heard  him  ?"  What  kind  of  old  women's  stories 
are  these  to  make  an  impression  upon  your  minds  ?  Well,  but  what 
does  that  mean  ?  Why,  can  you  be  at  a  loss  ?  It  means  to — kill 
the  King  !  Look  at  the  record — it  charges  the  persons  with  com- 
passing the  King's  death,  and  the  question  about  the  crowing  of  a 
cock  is  the  evidence  against  them. 

Gentlemen,  you  all  know,  for  you  are  not  of  ordinary  description, 
that  the  statute  of  Ed.  III.  was  made  to  reduce  vague  and  wandering 
treasons — to  abolish  the  doctrine  of  constructive  treason  and  to  mark 
out  some  limited  boundaries,  clear  to  a  court  and  jury.  If  a  man 
has  been  guilty  of  disrespect  in  point  of  expression  to  the  government 


334  TRIALS   OF 

or  the  crown,  the  law  has  ascertained  his  guilt  and  denounced  the 
punishment.  But  all  the  dreadful  uncertainty  intended  to  be  guarded 
against  by  the  statute,  and  which  before  the  passing  of  the  statute 
had  prevailed  in  case  of  treason,  and  which  had  shed  upon  the  scaf- 
fold some  of  the  best  blood  in  England  wovdd  again  run  in  upon  us, 
if  a  man  were  to  suffer  an  ignominious  death  under  such  circum- 
stances as  the  present.  If  equivocal  expressions  should  be  taken  as 
decisive  proof,  or  if  dubious  words  were  to  receive  a  meaning  from 
the  zeal  of  a  witness,  or  the  heat,  passion  or  prejudice  of  a  jury. 
The  true  rule  by  which  to  ascertain  what  evidence  should  be  deemed 
sufficient  against  a  prisoner  is,  that  no  man  should  be  convicted  of 
any  crime  except  upon  the  evidence  of  a  man  subject  to  an  indict- 
ment for  perjury,  where  the  evidence  is  such  as  if  false,  the  falsehood 
of  it  may  be  so  pi"oved  as  to  convict  the  witness  of  perjury.  But 
what  indictment  could  be  supported  for  a  laugh,  a  shrug,  or  a  wink  ? 
Was  there  any  convei'sation  about  killing  the  King  ?  No  :  but  here 
was  a  laugh — there  was  an  oath  to  which  we  were  sworn — and  then 
— there  was  a  wink ;  by  which  I  understood,  we  were  swearing  one 
thing  and  meant  another.  Why,  gentlemen,  there  can  be  no  safety 
to  the  honour,  the  property  or  the  life  of  man,  in  a  country  where 
such  evidence  as  this  shall  be  deemed  sufficient  to  convict  a  prisoner. 
There  is  nothing  necessary  to  sweep  a  man  from  society,  but  to  find 
a  miscreant  of  sufficient  enormity,  and  the  unfortunate  accused  is 
drifted  down  the  torrent  of  the  credulity  of  a  well-intending  jury. 
See  how  material  this  is,  Weldon  was  present  at  only  one  conversation 
with  the  witness.  It  is  not  pretended  by  the  counsel  for  the  crown, 
that  the  guilt  as  to  any  personal  evidence  against  Weldon  does  not 
stand  upon  the  first  conversation.  Was  there  a  word  upon  that  con- 
versation of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  ?  It  was  stated  in  the 
case,  and  certainly  made  a  strong  impression,  that  Lawler  was  inlisted 
in  order  to  assist  the  French.  I  heard  no  such  evidence  given.  The 
signs  of  what  he  called  Defenders  Avere  communicated  to  him  ;  the  oath 
which  he  took  was  read,  and  he  was  told  there  would  be  a  subsequent 
meeting  of  which  the  witness  should  receive  notice  from  Brady. 

Gentlemen,  before  I  quit  that  meeting  at  Barrack-street,  let  me  put 
this  soberly  to  you.  What  is  the  evidence  upon  which  the  court  can 
leave  it  to  you  to  determine,  that  there  is  equivocation  in  the  oath  ? 
It  must  be  in  this  way :  you  are  to  consider  words  in  the  sense  in 
which  they  are  spoken,  and  in  Avritings  words  are  to  be  taken  in  their 
common  meaning.  Words  have  sometimes  a  technical  sense  for  the 
purposes  of  certainty  :  they  may  also  be  made  the  signs  of  arbitrary 
ideas,  and  therefore  I  admit  a  treasonable  meaning  may  be  attached 
to  words  which,  in  their  ordinary  signification,  are  innocent.  But 
where  is  the  evidence,  or  what  has  the  witness  said  to  make  you 
believe,  that  these  words  in  the  oath  were  used  in  any  other  than  in 
the  common,  ordinary  acceptation  ?  Not  a  word  as  I  have  heard. 
Weldon  can  be  affected  only  personally,  either,  first,  upon  acts 
by  himself,  or  by  other  acts  brought  home  to  him  from  the 
general  circumstances  of  the  case.  I  am  considering  it  in  that 
two-fold  way,  and  I  submit,  that  if  it  stood  upon  the  evidence 
respecting  the  conduct  of  the  prisoner  at  Barrack-street  alone, 
there  could  not  be  a  doubt  as  to  his  acquittal.      It    is  necessary, 


to 


I  THE    DEFENDERS.  335 

I 

therefore,  that  I  should  take  some  further  notice  of  the  subsequent 
part  of  the  evidence.     The  witness  stated,  that  Weldon  informed  him, 
I    that  there  woidd  be  another  meeting  of  which  he,  the  witness,  should 
I    have  notice.     He  met  Brady  and  Kennedy,  they  told  liim  there  was 
a  meeting  at  Plunket-street ;  and  here  give  me  leave  to  remind  the 
court,  that  there  is  no  evidence,  that  there  was  any  guilty  purpose  in 
agitation  to  be  matured  at  any  futui*e  meeting — no  proposal  of  any 
criminal  design.     Tliere  ought  to  be  evidence  to  show  a  connection 
between  the  prisoner,  and  the  subsequent  meeting  as  held  under  his 
authority.     It  is  of  great  moment  to  recollect,  that  before  any  meeting 
Weldon  had  left  tOAvn,  and,  in  the  mention  of  any  meeting  to  be  held, 
I   let  it  be  remembered  he  did  not  state  any  particular  subject,  as  com- 
j   prehending  the  object  of  the  meeting.     What  happened  ?      There 
'   cei'tainly  was  a  meeting  at  Plunket-street ;  but  there  was  not  a  word 
of  assisting  the  French — of  subverting  the  religion — of  massacreing 
I   the  Protestants — of  any  criminal  design  whatever.     There  was  not 
;   any  consultation  upon  any  such  design.     I  make  this  distinction,  and 
rely  upon  it,  that  where  consultations  are  overt  acts  of  this  or  that 
:   species  of  treason,  it  must  be  a  consultation  by  the  members  composing 
that  meeting ;  because  it  would  be  the  most  ridiculous  nonsense,  that 
a  conversation  addressed  from  one  individual  to  another,  not  applied 
to  the  meeting,  should  be  called  a  consultation  :  but,  in  truth,  there  is 
no  evidence  of  anything  respecting  the  French,  except  in  Stoney- 
batter.     There,   for   the  first  time,  the  witness  says  he  heard  any 
I   mention  of  the  French.     Here,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  let  me  beseech 
you  to  consider  what  the  force  of  the  evidence  is.     Supposing  that 
what  one  man  said  there  to  another  about  assisting  the  French,  to 
have  been  criminal,  shall  Weldon,  who  was  then,  for  a  week,  a  hun- 
dred  miles   from   the  scene,    be    criminally    aifected   by    what   was 
criminally  done  at   Stoneybatter  ?     It  is  not  only  that  he  shall  be 
I   criminally  affected  by  Avhat  was  criminally  done,  but  even  to  the 
shedding  of  his  blood,  shall  he  be  affected  by  what  any  individual 
said,  who  casually  attended  that  meeting !     Have  you  any  feeling  of 
i   the  precipice  to  which  you  are  hurried,  Avhen  called  upon  to  extend 
this  evidence  in  such   a  manner  ? — without  any  one  person  being 
I   present  with  whom  the  prisoner  had  any  previous  confederation ! 
You  will  be  very  cautious  indeed,  how  you  establish  such  a  precedent. 
How  did  Weldon  connect  himself  with  any  other  meeting  ?     Why, 
t   he  said,  there  will  be  another  meeting,  you  shall  have   notice — it 
would  be  going  a  great  way  to  aftect  him  in  consequence  of  that.     I 
I   lay  down  the  law  with  confidence,  and  I  say  there  is  no  doctrine  in 
'•   it,  so  well  ascertained  and  established,  as  that  a  man  is  to  be  criminally 
affected  only  by  his  own  acts — the  man  to  be  charged,  must  be  charged 
with  overt  acts  of  his  own.     There  is  no  law — no  security — no  reason 
in  that  country  where   a  man  can    be   mowed    down   by  foolishly 
crediting   the   evidence,    not   of  acts    of  his    own,  but   of  the  acts 
of    others,     constructively    applied    to    him,    who    did    not    attend 
the  meeting,   nor   was   ever    aware   of   it.      If  a   man   was  to  be 
exposed   to   the    penalties  of   treason   hatched    and   perpetrated  in 
his  absence,  every  member  of  society  becomes  liable  to  be  cut  off 
by  mere  suspicion.     I  say,   no   man  could  go  to  his  bed  with   an 
expectation  of  sleeping  in  it  again  if  he  were  liable  to  be  called  upon 


336  TRIALS    OF 

to  answer  a  charge  of  suspicious  words,  spoken  when  he  was  an  hundred 
miles  off,  by  miscreants  with  wliom  he  had  no  connection.  Good, 
^God  !  gentlemen,  only  take  asunder  the  evidence  ui^on  which  you  are 
called  upon  to  take  away  the  life  of  this  man — "  You,  Weldon,  are 
chargeable,  and  shall  answer  with  your  blood,  for  what  was  done  at 
Stoney batter." — "  Why,that  is  very  hard,  gentlemen,  for  I  was  not  there 
— I  was  an  hundred  miles  off." — "Yes,  but  you  were  there  in  contem- 
plation of  law,  consulting  about  the  abominable  crimes  of  compassing 
the  King's  death,  and  adhering  to  his  enemies." — "  How,  gentlemen, 
could  I  be  there — I  knew  not  that  there  was  any  such  meeting — I 
was  not  present  at  it." — "  Aye,  but  you  were  there  in  contemplation 
of  law,  because  you  told  Lawler,  that  Brady  would  infoi'm  him,  when 
there  would  be  a  meeting  in  Thomas-street,  and  because  you  told  him 
so,  you  shall  be  answerable  with  your  life  for  what  is  done  at  any 
meeting,  at  any  distance  of  time,  at  any  place,  by  sti'angers  whom 
you  have  never  seen  or  heard  of.  You  have  written  your  name,  you 
have  indorsed  the  treasonable  purpose,  and  through  whatever  number 
of  persons  it  may  pass,  the  growing  interest  of  your  crime  is  accu- 
mulating against  you,  and  you  must  pay  it  with  your  blood,  when  it 
is  demanded  of  you."  Gentlemen,  before  we  shall  have  learned  to 
shed  blood  in  sport — while  death  and  slaughter  are  yet  not  matter  of 
pastime  among  us,  let  us  consider  maturely  before  we  establish  a  rule 
of  justice  of  this  kind.  Terrible  rviles,  as  we  have  seen  them  to  be, 
when  weighed  upon  the  day  of  retribution.  I  confess  it  is  new  to 
me.  Whatever  doctrines  I  have  learned,  I  have  endeavoured  to 
learn  them  from  the  good  sense,  and  humanity  of  the  English  law  ; — 
I  have  been  taught,  that  no  man's  life  shall  be  sacrificed  to  the  inge- 
nuity of  a  scholium,  and  that  even  he,  who  has  heedlessly  dropped 
the  seed  of  guilt,  should  not  answer  for  it  with  his  blood,  when  it  has 
grown  under  the  culture  of  other  hands  from  folly  to  crime  and  from 
crime  to  treason  ;  he  shall  not  be  called  upon  to  answer  for  the  wicked 
faults  of  casual  and  accidental  folly.  No ;  gentlemen,  I  say  it  with 
confidence,  the  act  which  makes  a  man  guilty  must  be  his  own  ;  or  if 
it  be  by  participation,  it  must  be  by  actual  participation,  not  by 
construction  ;  a  construction  which  leads  to  an  endless  confounding 
of  persons  and  things.  If  I  do  an  act  myself,  I  am  answerable  for 
it :  If  I  do  it  by  another  I  am  answerable  also.  If  I  strike  the 
bloAV,  I  am  answei-able :  If  I  send  an  assassin  and  he  strikes  the 
blow  it  is  still  my  act,  and  I  ought  to  be  charged  Avith  the  criminality 
of  it.  But  if  I  go  into  a  society  of  men,  into  a  club,  or  play-house, 
and  a  crime  be  there  committed,  there  is  no  principle  of  law  which 
shall  bring  home  to  me  the  guilty  conduct  of  those  men  which  they 
may  pursue  at  any  distance  of  time.  What  protection  can  a  miser- 
able man  have  from  my  discharging  perhaps  the  ineffectual  office  of 
my  duty  to  him,  if  the  rule  laid  down,  that  every  word  he  said,  or 
was  said  by  a  man  with  whom  he  ever  had  a  conversation,  shall  affect 
him  at  any  distance  of  time  ?  Consider  what  will  be  the  consequence 
of  establishing  the  precedent,  that  a  man  shall  always  be  responsible 
for  the  act  of  the  society  to  which  he  has  once  belonged.  Suppose  a 
man  heedlessly  brought  into  an  association  where  criminal  purposes 
ai'e  going  forward — suppose  there  was  wliat  has  been  stated,  a  society 
of  men  cnlliug  themselves  Defenders  and  answering  in  fact  to  the  very 


THE  DEFENDEHS.  337 

singular  pictui-e  drawn  of  them.  Will  you  give  it  abroad,  that  if  a 
man  once  belongs  to  a  criminal  confederacy,  his  case  is  desperate — 
his  retreat  is  cut  off — that  every  man  once  present  at  a  meeting  to 
subvert  the  government  shall  be  answerable  for  every  thing  done  at 
any  distance  of  time  by  this  flagitious  association.  What  is  the  law 
in  this  respect  ?  As  in  the  association  there  is  a  peril,  so  in  the 
moment  of  retreat,  there  is  safety.  What  could  this  man  have  done  ? 
He  quitted  the  city — he  went  to  another  part  of  the  kingdom,  when 
the  treasonable  acts  were  committed ;  yes,  but  he  was  virtually  among 
them.  What  constitutes  a  man  vii'tually  present,  when  he  is  physi- 
cally absent  ?  What  is  the  principle  of  law  by  which  he  shall  be 
tried  ?     It  can  alone  be  tried  by  that,   by  which   the  mandate  or 

1  authority  of  any  man  is  brought  home  to  him.  By  previously  sug- 
gesting the  crime,  by  which  he  becomes  an  accessaiy  before  the  fact, 
and  therefore  a  principal  in  treason  ;  for  by  suggesting  the  time  he 
proves  the  concurrence  of  his  will  with  that  of  the  party  committing 
the  crime.  This  is  a  maxim  of  law,  that  which  in  ordinary 
felonies  makes  a  man  an  accessary  in  treason  will  constitute  him  a 
principal,  because  in  treason  there  are  no  accessaries.  Suppose  a 
meeting  held  for  one  purpose,  and  a  totally  distinct  crime  is  committed, 
are  those  Avho  were  at  the  first  meeting  accessaries  ?  Certainly  not ; 
because  they  must  be  procurers  of  the  fact  done.     To  make  a  man  a 

;  principal,  he  must  be  quodammodo  aiding  and  assisting — that  is  not 
proved.     What  then  is  the  accessorial  guilt  ?     Did  the  prisoner  write 

.  to  the  others  ?  Does  he  appear  to  be  the  leader  of  any  fraternity — the 
conductor  of  any  treasonable  meeting  ?  No  such  thing.  I  say  when 
he  quitted  Dublin  he  had  no  intention  of  giving  aid,  or  continuance 
to  any  meeting ;  the  connection  between  him  and  the  societies  ceased, 
and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  had  any  knowledge  of  any  of  their 
subsequent  acts.  Unless  there  be  positive  evidence  agains  thim,  you 
ought  to  consider  him  out  of  the  sphere  of  any  association.     But  still 

>  you  make  him  answerable  for  what  was  done.  If  you  do  that,  you 
establish  a  rule  unknown  to  the  sense  or  humanity  of  the  law ;  making 
him  answerable  for  what  was  done,  not  by  himself  but  by  other 
persons. 

Gentlemen,  I  feel  that  counsel,  anxious  as  they  ought  to  be,  may 
be  led  further  than  they  intend ; — in  point  of  time  I  have  pressed 

I  further  than  I  foresaw  upon  the  patience  of  the  jury  and  the  court. 

1  I  say  the  object  of  this  part  of  the  trial  is  whether  the  guilt  of  any- 

'  thing  which  happened  in  that  society  be  in  point  of  law  brought 

I  home  to  the  prisoner  ?  I  have  endeavoured  to  submit  that  the  charge 
ought  to  be  clear  and  the  evidence  explicit,  and  that  though  the 
meetings  at  which  Lawler  attended  were  guilty,  yet  the  prisoner  being 
absent,  was  not  affected  by  their  criminality.  Give  me  leave  now, 
with  deference,  to  consider  the  case  in  another  point  of  view.     I  say 

:  then,  from  what  has  appeared  in  evidence,  the  meetings  themselves 
cannot  in  the  estimation  of  the  law  be  guilty.  If  these  meetings  are 
not  provably  guilty  of  treason,  there  can  be  no  retroacted  guilt  upon 
the  prisoner,  even  if  the  communication  between  them  and  him  were 
proved.  If  there  be  no  direct  and  original  guilt — if  they  do  not  that, 
which  if  done  by  him,  would  amount  to  an  overt  act  of  treason, 
a  fortiori,  it  cannot  extend  to  him.     Therefore  let  me  suppose,  that 

z 


338  TRIALS  OF 

the  prisoner  was  at  the  time  present  at  these  meetings.  Be  pleased 
to  examine  this,  whether  if  he  were,  the  evidence  given  would  amount 
to  the  proof  required.  I  conceive  that  nothing  can  be  more  clear 
than  the  distinction  between  mere  casual,  indiscreet  language,  and 
language  conveying  a  deliberated  and  debated  purpose.  To  give 
evidence  of  overt  acts,  the  evidence  must  be  clear  and  direct.  How 
is  Hensey's  case  ?*  A  species  of  evidence  was  adduced  which  it  was 
impossible  for  any  man  to  deny  :  actual  proof  of  correspondence  found. 
in  his  own  writing  and  possession.  How  was  it  in  Lord  Preston's 
case  ?f  Evidence  equally  clear  of  a  purpose  acted  upon ;  going  to 
another  country  for  that  treasonable  purpose.  In  every  case  of  which 
we  read  memorials  in  the  law,  the  act  is  such,  that  no  man  could  say 
it  is  not  an  overt  act  of  the  means  used  by  the  party  in  effectuation  of 
his  guilty  intent.  But  I  said,  that  a  deliberate  purpose  expressed  and 
acted  upon  is  different  from  a  casual,  indiscreet  expression.  Suppose 
now,  that  the  meeting  were  all  indicted  for  compassing  the  King's 
death,  and  that  the  overt  act  charged  is,  that  they  consulted  about 
giving  aid  to  the  King's  enemies,  actually  at  war.  The  guilt  of  all  is 
the  guilt  of  each,  there  is  no  distinction  between  them.  If  that  meet- 
ing held  that  consvdtation,  they  are  all  guilty  of  that  species  of  high 
treason.  But  if  the  evidence  wei-e,  that  at  that  meeting  which  con- 
sisted of  as  many  as  are  now  here,  one  individual  tunied  about  to 
another,  and  said  "  we  must  get  arms  to  assist  the  French,  when  they 
come  here."  Would  any  reasonable  man  say,  that  was  a  consultation 
to  adhere  to  the  King's  enemies? — a  mere  casual  expression,  not 
answered  by  any  one — not  addressed  to  the  body.  Can  it  be  sustained 
for  a  moment  in  a  court  of  justice,  that  it  was  a  consultation  to  effect 
the  death  of  the  King,  or  adhere  to  his  enemies?  No,  gentlemen, 
this  is  not  matter  of  any  deep  or  profound  learning — it  is  familiar  to 
the  plainest  understanding.  The  foolish  language  of  one  servant 
in  your  hall  is  not  evidence  to  affect  all  the  other  servants  in  your 
house :  it  is  not  the  guilt  of  the  rest.  I  am  aware,  it  may  be  the 
guilt  of  the  rest ;  it  may  become  such.  But  I  rely  upon  this ;  I 
address  it  to  you  with  the  confidence  that  my  own  conviction  inspires ; 
that  yotir  lordships  will  state  to  the  jury,  that  a  consultation  upon  a 
subject  is  a  reciprocation  of  sentiment  upon  the  same  subject.  Every 
man  understands  the  meaning  of  a  consultation  :  there  is  no  servant 
that  cannot  understand  it.  If  a  man  said  to  another,  "  we  will  con- 
spire to  kill  the  King,"  no  lacquey  could  mistake  it.  But  what  is  a 
consultation  ?  Why  such  as  a  child  could  not  mistake  if  it  passed 
before  him.  One  saying  to  another,  "  we  are  here  together,  private 
friends — we  are  at  war — the  French  may  land,  and  if  they  do,  we 
will  assist  them."  To  make  that  a  consultation  there  must  be  an 
assent  to  the  same  thought;  upon  that  assent,  the  guilt  of  the  con- 
sultation is  founded.  Is  that  proved  by  a  casual  expression  of  one 
man,  without  the  man  to  whom  it  was  directed  making  any  answer, 
and  when  in  fact  every  other  man  but  the  person  using  the  expression 
was  attending  for  another  purpose  ?  But  if  there  be  any  force  in 
what  I  have  said  as  applied  to  any  man  attending  there,  how  much 
more  forcible  will  it  appear,  when  applied  to  a  man,  who  was  an 

*  19  Howell's  St.  Tr.  1341.         f  12  Howell's  St.  Tr.  G46. 


THE  DEFENDERS.  339 

hundred  miles  distant  from  the  place  of  meeting.  If  the  law  be  clear, 
that  there  is  no  treason  in  hearing  treasonable  designs  and  not  con- 
senting thereto,  though  it  be  another  offence,  unless  he  goes  there 
knowing  beforehand,  the  meeting  was  to  be.  Here,  gentlemen,  see 
how  careful  the  law  is,  and  how  far  it  is  fi-om  being  unprovided  as 
to  different  cases  of  this  kind.  If  a  man  goes  to  a  meeting,  knowing 
that  the  object  is  to  hatch  a  crime,  he  shall  be  joined  in  the  guilt. 
If  he  goes  there  and  takes  a  part,  without  knowing  previously,  he  is 
involved  ;  though  that  has  been  doubted.  Foster  says,  "  this  is  proper 
to  be  left  to  the  jury,  though  a  party  do,  or  say  notliing  as  to  the  con- 
siiltation."  If,  for  instance,  a  man  knowing  of  a  design  to  imprison 
the  King,  and  goes  to  a  meeting  to  consult  for  that  purpose,  his  going 
there  is  an  obvious  proof  of  his  assent  and  encouragement.  This  is 
the  law  as  laid  down  by  one  of  the  most  enlightened  writers  in  any 
science.  Compare  that  doctrine  with  what  Mr.  Attorney- General 
wishes  to  inculcate,  when  he  seeks  to  convict  the  prisoner.  There 
was  a  meeting  in  Barrack-street,  and  it  was  treason,  because  they 
laughed.  As  Sancho  said,  they  all  talked  of  me,  because  they 
laughed.  But  then  there  is  a  catechism.  Aye,  what  say  you  to  that  ? 
The  cock  crew  in  France — Avhat  say  you  to  that  ?  Why  I  say  it 
might  be  foolish,  it  might  be  indecent  to  talk  in  this  manner ;  but 
what  is  the  charge  ?  That  he  consulted  to  kill  the  King.  Where 
was  it  he  did  that  ?  At  Cork !  But  did  he  not  assist  ?  No ;  he 
was  not  there.  But  he  did  assist,  because  he  communicated  signs, 
and  thus  you  collect  the  guilt  of  the  party,  as  the  coroner  upon  an 
inquest  of  murder,  who  thought  a  man  standing  by  was  guilty. 
Why  ?  Because  three  drops  of  blood  fell  from  his  nose.  This  was 
thought  to  be  invincible  proof  of  his  guilt.  It  reminds  me  also  of  an 
old  woman  who  undertook  to  prove  that  a  ghost  had  appeared.  "  How 
do  you  know  there  was  a  ghost  in  the  room?"  "Oh!  I'll  prove  to 
you,  there  must  have  been  a  ghost — for  the  very  moment  I  went  in, 
I  fainted  flat  on  the  floor  !"  So  says  Mr.  Attorney- General.  "  Oh, 
I'll  convince  you,  gentlemen,  he  designed  to  kill  the  King,  for  he 
laughed."  Weldon  was  chargeable  with  all  the  guilt  of  the  meeting 
— ^he  laughed,  when  the  paper  was  read  and  said,  when  the  King's 
head  was  off,  there  was  an  end  of  the  allegiance.  In  answer  to  that, 
I  state  the  humane  good  sense  of  the  law,  that  in  the  case,  of  the  life 
of  a  traitor  ;  it  is  tender  in  proportion  to  the  abomination  of  the  crime 
— ^for  the  law  of  England,  while  it  suspended  the  sword  of  justice 
over  the  head  of  the  guilty  man,  threw  its  protection  around  the 
innocent,  to  save  his  loyalty  from  the  danger  of  such  evidence : — it 
did  more — it  threw  its  protection  around  him  whose  innocence  might 
be  doubted,  but  who  was  not  proved  to  be  guilty.  The  mild  and 
lenient  policy  of  the  law  discharges  a  man  from  the  necessity  of  prov- 
ing his  innocence,  because  otherwise  it  would  look  as  if  the  jury  were 
impannelled  to  condemn  upon  accusation  without  evidence  in  support 
:  of  it,  but  merely  because  he  did  not  prove  himself  innocent.  There- 
fore, gentlemen,  I  come  round  again  to  state  what  the  law  is.  In 
order  to  make  a  general  assembling  and  consultation  evidence  of 
overt  acts,  there  must  be  that  assembling  and  the  guilt  must  be 
marked  by  that  consulation  in  order  to  charge  any  man,  who  was 
present  and  not  say  anything  concurring  with  the  guilt  of  that  con- 


340  TRIALS    OF 

sultation.  It  is  necessary  that  he  should  have  notice  that  the  guilty 
purpose  was  to  be  debated  upon  : — ^that  the  meeting  was  convened 
for  that  purpose.  But  let  me  recal  your  attention  to  this,  and  you 
will  feel  it  bearing  strongly  upon  that  case.  The  silence  of  a  man  at 
such  a  meeting  is  not  criminal  to  the  degree  here  charged.  Then 
suppose  his  disclaimer  necessary — suppose  the  law  considered  every 
man  as  abetting  what  he  did  not  disavow,  remember  that  the  wretch  ! 
now  sought  to  be  affected  by  his  silence  at  a  meeting,  Avas  one  hundred 
miles  distant  from  it.  There  might  have  been  a  purpose  from  which 
his  soul  had  recoiled.  Is  this  then  evidence  upon  which  to  convict  the  . 
prisoner  ?  There  is  no  statement  of  any  particular  purpose — no 
summons  to  confer  upon  any  particular  purpose — no  authority  given  I 
to  any  meeting  by  a  deputy  named — and  let  me  remind  you,  that  at 
the  last  meeting,  if  there  were  the  gossipings  and  communications  \ 
you  have  heard,  there  was  not  any  one  man  present  who  attended  j 
the  first  meeting,  nor  is  there  any  evidence  to  shew,  that  the  prisoner  , 
had  ever  spoken  to  any  one  man  who  attended  the  last  meeting,  upon 
any  occasion,  and  yet  the  monstrous  absurdity  contended  for  is,  that 
although  Weldon  proposed  no  subject  for  discussion — although  he 
proposed  no  meeting — although  he  did  not  know  that  any  purpose  was 
to  be  carried  into  effect,  because  he  was  then  one  hundi-ed  miles  off, 
he  is  still  to  suffer  for  the  foolish  babble  of  one  individual  to  another. 
You  are  to  put  all  proceedings  together  and  out  of  the  tissue  of  this 
talk,  hearsay  and  conjecture,  you  are  to  collect  the  materials  of  a 
verdict,  by  which  you  directly  swear,  that  the  man  is  guilty  of  com- 
passing the  King's  death.  But  suppose  a  man  wei-e  to  suggest  a 
treasonable  meeting — that  the  meeting  takes  place  and  he  does  not 
go — the  first  proposal  may  amount  to  evidence  of  treason  if  it  went 
far  enough,  and  amounted  to  an  incitement.  But  suppose  the  meet- 
ing held  be  a  distinct  one  from  that  which  was  suggested,  and  the 
party  does  not  attend,  it  appears  to  me,  that  the  act  of  that  meeting 
cannot  be  considered  as  his  overt  act.  The  previous  incitement  must 
be  clearly  established  by  evidence,  and  I  rely  upon  it,  that  the  sub- 
sequent acts  of  that  meeting,  to  which  I  am  supposing  he  did  not  go, 
particularly  if  it  be  a  meeting  at  which  many  others  were  present 
Avho  were  not  at  the  first,  I  rely  upon  it,  I  say,  that  no  declaration  of 
any  man  (and  more  decidedly  if  it  be  by  a  man  not  privy  to  the 
original  declaration,)  can  be  evidence  upon  which  a  jury  can  attach 
guilt  to  the  party.  It  is  nothing  more  than  misfeasance,  which  is 
certainly  criminal,  but  not  to  the  extent  of  this  charge.  To  affect 
any  man  by  svibsequent  debate,  it  must  be  with  notice  of  the  purpose, 
and  if  the  meeting  be  dictated  by  himself  it  is  only  in  that  point  he 
can  be  guilty ;  because  if  you  propose  a  meeting  for  one  purpose,  you 
shall  not  be  affected  by  any  other — no  matter  what  the  meeting  is — 
however  treasonable,  or  bad ;  unless  you  knew  before  for  what 
purpose  they  assembled  you  cannot  be  guilty  virtually  by  what  they 
have  done.  Gentlemen,  I  do  not  see  that  anything  further  occurs  to 
me  upon  the  law  of  the  case,  that  I  have  not  endeavoured  in  some 
way  to  submit  to  you.  Perhaps  I  have  been  going  back  somewhat 
irregularly.  Gentlemen,  there  remains  only  one,  and  that  a  very 
narrow  subject  of  observation.  I  said  that  the  evidence  upon  whicli 
the  life,  and  the  fame  and  the  property  of  a  man  should  be  decided 


THE    DEFENDERS.  341 

and  extinguished,  ought  to  be  of  itself,  evidence  of  a  most  cogent 
and  impressive  nature.  Gentlemen,  does  it  appear  to  you  that  the 
witness  whom  you  saw  upon  the  table  comes  under  that  description. 
Has  he  sworn  truly  ?  If  he  has — what  has  he  told  you  ?  As  soon 
as  he  discovered  the  extent  of  the  guilt  he  quitted  the  fraternity. 
Do  you  believe  that  ?  Plart  told  him  that  all  the  Protestants  were 
to  be  massacred.  "  I  did  not  like,"  said  he,  "  the  notion  of  massacre- 
ing  ALL."  Here  is  the  picture  he  draws  of  himself — he  an  accom- 
plice in  the  guilt.  I  did  not  ask  him,  "  Have  you  been  promised  a 
pardon  ?"  I  did  not  ask  him  "  Are  you  coming  to  swear  by  the 
acre  ?" — But  I  appeal  to  the  picture  he  drew  of  himself  upon  the 
table.  What  worked  his  contrition  ?  Is  it  the  massacre  of  one 
wretch  ?  He  was  unappalled  at  the  idea  of  dipping  his  hands,  and 
lapping  the  blood  of  part  of  the  Protestant  body — it  was  only  heaps 
of  festering  dead,  that  nauseated  his  appetite  and  worked  his  re- 
pentance and  conversion.  Is  your  verdict  to  be  founded  upon  the 
unsupported  evidence  of  a  wretch  of  that  kind.  His  stomach  stood  a 
partial  massacre — it  was  only  an  universal  deluge  of  blood  that  made 
him  a  convert  to  humanity !  And  lie  is  now,  the  honest,  disinter- 
ested and  loyal  witness  in  a  court  of  justice.  What  said  he  further  ? 
"  As  soon  as  I  found  from  Hart  their  schemes,  I  went  to  Mr.  Cowan." 
You  saw,  gentlemen,  that  he  felt  my  motive  in  asking  the  question. 
"  You  abandoned  them  as  soon  as  you  found  their  criminality." — 
Because  had  he  answered  otherwise  he  would  have  destroyed  his 
ci'edit ;  but  as  it  is  he  has  thrown  his  credit,  and  the  foundation  of  it 
overboard.  If  Lawler  be  innocent,  Weldon  must  be  so.  He  saw 
that  and  therefore  he  said,  he  thought  it  no  crime  to  kill  the  King. 
Therefore,  gentlemen,  my  conscience  told  me,  that  if  he  felt  no 
remorse  at  plunging  a  dagger  into  the  heart  of  his  King,  he  would 
feel  no  trembling  hesitation  at  plunging  a  dagger  into  the  breast  of 
an  individual  subject  by  perjured  testimony.  Those  workings  of  the 
heart  which  agitate  the  feelings  at  the  untimely  fate  of  a  fellow  creature 
touch  not  him,  and  he  could  behold  with  delight,  the  perishing  of  that 
man  who  had  a  knowledge  of  his  guilt.  He  has  no  compunction  and 
he  betrays  no  reluctance  at  drinking  deep  in  the  torrent  of  human 
blood,  provided  it  leaves  a  remnant  of  the  class.  What  stipulation 
can  you  make  between  a  wretch  of  that  kind  and  the  secret  obligation 
of  an  oath  ?  You  are  to  swear  upon  his  oath — a  verdict  is  not  to  be 
founded  upon  your  own  loyalty — not  upon  what  you  have  seen  or 
heard  spoken  disrespectfully  of  the  government  or  the  King.  Your 
honest,  pure,  and  constitutional  verdict  can  be  founded  only  upon 
that  sympathy  that  you  feel  between  your  own  hearts  and  the  credi- 
bility of  the  witness.  It  is  a  question  for  you.  Will  you  hazard  that 
oath  upon  the  conscience  of  such  a  man  ?  A  man  influenced  by  hope 
and  agitated  with  fear — anxious  for  life  and  afraid  to  die,  that  you  may 
safely  say,  "  we  have  heard  a  witness,  he  stated  facts  which  we  could 
not  believe ;  he  is  a  wretch  for  he  thought  it  no  crime  to  murder  his 
King ;  and  a  partial  massacre  appeared  to  him  to  be  meritorious !" 
Is  it  upon  the  testimony  of  that  nefarious  miscreant — the  ready  traitor 
— the  prompt  murderer — I  retract  not  the  expression,  if  I  did,  it 
would  be  to  put  in  its  place  a  word  of  more  emphatic  and  combined 
reprobation  ;  is  it  upon  that  evidence,  I  say  you  will  pronounce  a 


342  TRIALS  OF 

verdict,  establishing  the  most  aggravated  degree  of  criminality  known 
to  our  law  upon  the  person  of  that  man,  supposed  by  the  law  to  be 
innocent  until  his  guilt  be  proved  ?  I  know  not  whether  the  man 
be  a  good  subject  or  a  bad  one  :  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  know 
nor  for  you  to  enquire ;  but  I  exhort  you,  finally  to  remember,  that 
in  Great  Britain,  so  anxious  has  the  law  been  to  guard  against  the 
perfidiousness  of  such  men,  that  no  less  than  two  concurrent  witnesses  ; 
are  necessary  there  in  cases  of  treason.  I  call  not  upon  you  to  adopt 
that  law  ;  but  to  shew  you  the  principle,  that  there  should  be  strong 
evidence  satisfying  the  mind  of  a  jury.  I  commit  the  decision  of 
this  case  to  your  consciences,  not  to  your  humanity — I  commit  it  to 
your  determination  upon  the  sound  principles  of  justice  and  law. 

After  Mr.  Curran  had  sat  down,  he  rose  again,  and  said  he  had 
closed  without  stating  any  evidence,  from  a  conviction  that  it  would 
be  unnecessary.  It  is  desired  to  produce  some  evidence  which  I  will 
not  oppose  in  a  case  of  life.  There  is  evidence  to  shew  that  Lawler 
is  not  credible. 

Samuel  Galland  was  then  called  and  sworn  on  the  part  of  the 
prisoner,  but  was  not  examined. 

James  Reynolds,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  M'Naxly. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  ?  A.  I  have  known  him  for  seven- 
teen years. 

Q.  What  has  been  his  general  character  ?  A.  I  never  heard  of 
any  thing  improper,  before  this  trial ;  he  worked  as  a  breeches-maker 
and  was  an  industrious  man. 

Thomas  O'Neil,  sworn — Examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him?  A.  I  have  known  him 
twenty  years. 

Q,  What  has  been  his  general  character  ?  A.  A  very  good  one — 
he  was  an  honest,  laborious  man. 

Mr.  M'Nally  then  addressed  the  jury  in  a  short  speech  for  the 
prisoner,  apologising  for  his  brevity  by  stating  that  he  was  much 
indisposed  and  that  any  exertion  upon  his  part  was  rendered  less 
necessary  by  the  very  splendid  defence  by  Mr.  Curran. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant  in  reply,  spoke  to  the  evidence  very  fully. 

Mr.  Justice  Finucane Gentlemen  of  the  jury.     In  this  case 

James  Weldon  stands  indicted  of  two  species  of  treason,  declared  to 
be  such,  by  the  stat.  25,  Ed.  III.  One  of  these  is  for  imagining  and 
compassing  the  death  of  the  King.  And  the  other  is  for  adhering  to 
the  King's  enemies.  Now,  gentlemen,  as  to  first  of  these  charges,; 
that  of  compassing  the  King's  death,  such  is  the  anxious  care  with! 
which  the  life  of  the  King  is  guarded  by  our  law,  that  the  offence  is 
not  confined  to  acts,  or  attempts  directly  against  the  life  of  the  King, 
as  by  laying  in  wait  to  assassinate,  or  by  murdering,  but  it  extends 
to  every  thing  deliberately  done,  by  which  the  life  of  the  King  might 
be  endangered.  Thus,  it  has  been  always  held,  and  is  now  well 
established,  that  all  attempts  to  dethrone  or  imprison  the  King  are 
overt  acts  of  compassing  his  death ;  for  all  experience,  and  all  history 


\ 


THE  DEFENDERS.  343 

shew,  that  the  necessary  consequence  of  such  dethronement  or 
imprisonment  has  been  the  death  of  the  King.  So,  also  adhering  to 
the  King's  enemies,  or  encouraging  them  to  invade  the  kingdom,  are 
overt  acts  of  imagining  his  death ;  and  that  I  take  it,  does  fairly 
follow  to  the  conviction  of  every  man,  when  he  considers  that  the 
ultimate  object  of  the  King's  public  enemies  is  his  death  and  destruc- 
tion. The  King  is  the  first  soldier  of  the  state,  and  the  sword  of  the 
enemy  is  as  much  levelled  at  his  life,  as  that  of  any  soldier  in  his 
army.  And  therefore  every  act  of  adhering,  countenance,  or  assist- 
ance to  the  King's  enemies,  does  necessarily  fall  under  that  branch 
of  the  statute,  which  makes  the  offence  of  compassing  and  imagining 
the  death  of  the  King.  Therefore,  gentlemen,  although  these  two 
offences  are  made  distinct  by  the  statute,  compassing  his  death  and 
adhering  to  his  enemies,  yet  every  overt  act,  which  proves  the  person 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  is  also  an  overt  act  of  compassing 
the  death  of  the  King.  By  overt  act,  nothing  more  is  meant,  than 
an  act  done  by  the  party  to  effect  his  treasonable  intent.  It  is  called 
an  overt  act,  that  is,  an  open  act,  the  means  used  by  the  party  to 
accomplish  his  treason,  that  is  to  say,  to  put  the  King  to  death,  or 
adhere  to  the  King's  enemies.  No  man  is  answerable  for  the  tacit 
imagination  of  his  heart,  unless  he  does  something  to  effect  his 
traitorous  intent.  To  God  alone,  the  searcher  of  all  hearts,  is  he 
answerable  for  his  thoughts  and  intentions.  But  human  tribunals 
■. ,  cannot  take  cognizance  of  thoughts,  except  so  far  as  they  are  mani- 
fested by  acts.  Therefore  in  every  indictment  of  treason,  the  overt 
acts,  the  means  used  to  effect  the  purpose,  must  be  set  forth,  because 
it  is  against  them,  the  accused  is  to  make  his  defence.  But  though 
the  indictment  should,  as  it  generally  does,  state  several  overt  acts,  as 
means  used  by  the  party  to  effect  his  purpose  ;  yet,  if  there  be  any 
one  applicable  to  the  treason  charged,  it  is  sufficient.  Now,  gentlemen, 
in  the  present  indictment,  the  overt  acts  of  both  species  of  treason 
are  one  and  the  same ;  and  from  what  I  before  mentioned,  they  may 
be  so,  as  every  act  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  is  an  overt  act 
of  compassing  the  King's  death.  The  overt  acts  in  this  indictment 
are  these  :  First,  after  reciting  that  a  war  is  depending  between  the 
King  and  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France, 
(and  here  I  must  observe,  that  although  no  proof  be  given  of  a  war 
existing  between  the  King  and  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of 
government  in  France,  yet  the  notoriety  of  the  fact  is  sufficient  evidence 
of  it)  the  indictment,  I  say,  recites  the  war,  and  then  charges  that 
the  prisoner  did  unite  with  false  traitors,  called  Defenders,  and  become 
one  of  a  party  to  aid  the  French,  in  case  they  should  invade  this 
kingdom.  This  is  stated  as  the  manner  in  which  he  intended  to 
carry  into  effect  his  traitorous  purpose.  Secondly,  that  he  did  consult 
with  other  traitors  unknown,  in  the  joining  and  assisting  with  the 
French.  Thirdly,  that  he  did  unite  with  traitors  unknown,  and 
become  one  of  a  party  called  Defenders,  united  to  subveii;  the  govern- 
ment as  by  law  established.  But,  gentlemen,  this  overt  act  being 
thus  laid,  not  stating  that  there  was  any  plan  formed  to  effect  it  by 
force,  we  are  of  opinion,  that  this  overt  act  does  not  fall  within 
either  species  of  treason  ;  therefore  you  are  not  to  apply  your  consi- 
deration to  that  overt  act.     The  fourth,  is  to  the   same  purport,   and 


344  TRIALS    OF 

you  will  also  put  it  out  of  your  consideration,  that  he  did  unite  with 
others  unknown  to  subvert  the  Protestant  religion,  and  consult  about 
the  means,  &c.     The  court  are  of  opinion,  that  that  does  not  form  any 
overt  act  of  compassing  the  Kings  death,  or  adhering  to  his  enemies. 
The  fifth  is,  that  the  prisoner   did,  with  other  traitors  unknown,   in 
order  to  enlist  "William  Lawler  to  be  aiding  and  assisting  the  French, 
in  case  they  should  invade   this  kingdom,   administer  an   unlawful 
oath.     I  will  not  read  this  to  you  now,  gentlemen,  because,  when   I 
state  the  evidence,  I  shall  lay  it  before  you  in  its  proper  place.     The 
sixth  is,  that  in  order  to  procure  and  enlist  William   Lawler  to  aid 
the  French,  he  did  administer  and  instruct  him  to  repeat  an  oath, 
declaration,  or  catechism,  which  I  will  also  state  by-and-by.      The 
seventh  overt  act  relates  to  a  conspiracy  to  subvert  the  government, 
and  not  being  laid  to  be  intended  by  force,  you  will  throw  it  out  of 
your  consideration.     The  eighth  is,  that  to  procure  William  Lawler, 
to  assist  the  French,  he  administered  an  oath  to  him.     These  gentle- 
men, are  the  overt  acts  laid  in  the  indictment,  and  in  my  apprehension, 
those,  which  are  material  for  your  consideration,  may  be  classed  under 
two  heads  :  first,  that  he  did  imite  with   Defenders,  and  meet  and 
consult  with  them,  for  the  purpose  of  joining  and  assisting  the  French 
in  case  they  should  invade  this  kingdom.     Secondly,  that  he  did 
administer  a  certain  oath  and  engagement  to  Lawler,  to  enlist,  bind,  and 
engage  him  to  aid  and  assist  the  French,  in  case  they  should  invade  this 
kingdom.    These  two  species  of  overt  acts,  are  clear  overt  acts  of  adher- 
ing to  the  King's  enemies,  which  is  one  of  the  treasons  ;  so  that  if  this 
indictment  did  not  charge  the  treason  of  compassing  and  imagining  the 
death  of  the  King,  and  was  confined  solely  to  the  charge  of  adhering 
to  his  enemies,  that  species  of  treason,  if  proved,  will  be  clearly  sup- 
ported.    Therefore,  gentlemen,  if  it  should  appear,  beyond  all  doubt, 
that  these  acts  charged  were  done  by  the  prisoner,  or  any  one  of 
them,  then  the  prisoner  is  clearly  guilty  of  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies,  and  also   guilty  of  the  other  species,  not  directly,  but  by 
consequence.     But  unless  you  shall  be  perfectly  satisfied,  that  they, 
or  some  of  them  were  done,  and  his  object  was  to  assist  the  French, 
whatever  other  objects  he  had,  you  must  acquit  him  of  the  offence 
charged.     It  will  be  now  your  duty,  to  consider  the  evidence  most 
minutely :  for  this  purpose,  I  will  state  the  evidence  which  has  been 
given  in  this   case.     The  first  witness  for  the  crown  Avas  William 
Lawler ;   he   mentioned,  &c.     [Here   his  lordship  recapitulated  the 
evidence  with  the  utmost  accuracy  and  precision,  which  being  de- 
tailed very  amply  already,  it  is  thought  unnecessary  to  repeat.     His 
lordship  also  read  the  papers,  as  stated  in  tlie  indictment  and  proved, 
and  then  observed :]     If  you,  gentlemen,  are  satisfied  that  this  was 
an  engagement  to  bind  this  man  to  aid  the  National  Convention  of 
France,  it  is  a  clear  overt  act  of  adhereing  to  the  King's  enemies  ; 
because  it  is  procuring  another  person  to  assist  the  enemies  of  the 
King,  if  you  shall  be  of  opinion,  that  the  words  National  Conven- 
tion mean  the  National  Convention  of  France,  and  if  you  believe  that 
it  was  put  to  this  man.     Another  object  of  the  paper  is  to  destroy  all 

gs.     If  you  shall  be  of  opinion,   that  tlie  blank  is  to  be  filled  up 

with  the  word  "  King,"  it  goes  to  substantiate  the  other  species  of 
treason  in  the  indictment,  because  our  King  is  included  in  the  number. 


THE  DEFENBERS.  345 

and  every  act  done  to  dethrone  the  King  is  comprehended  in  that 
species  of  treason  of  compassing  his  death.  Then  the  other  paper,  to 
which  the  witness  says  he  was  sworn,  together  with  the  engagement, 
states  that  the  person  taking  it  is  "  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  King 
George  III.,  whilst  I  live  under  the  same  government."  These 
words  are  deserving  of  your  consideration,  because  it  is  a  quali- 
fication of  the  engagement,  only  whilst  he  lives  under  the  same 
government,  and  how  far  other  parts  also  qualify  it,  and  make  it 
pleasing  and  agreeable  to  others,  is  also  for  your  consideration.  Now, 
to  be  sure,  if  this  oath  were  taken  alone  and  by  itself,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  terms  of  it  that  could  tend  in  any  degree  to  support  the  overt 
acts  charged  in  the  indictment.  But  connecting  it  with  the  test 
taken  at  the  same  time,  it  deserves  a  very  diiFerent  consideration  ; 
and  it  will  be  for  you,  gentlemen,  to  consider  how  far  one  throws 
light  upon  the  other.  If  the  object  of  them  be  to  bind  this  man  to 
the  National  Convention,  to  dethrone  all  Kings,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  they  support  the  treason  charged  in  the  indictment.  After 
the  oath  was  taken,  the  witness  mentioned  to  you  that  Brady  asked 
the  pi'isoner  if  he  knew  any  person  who  was  to  head  them  when  they 
rose ;  that  he  answered  there  was  one  in  the  North.  There  is  no 
overt  act  of  a  rising,  or  a  conspiracy  to  rise  ;  but  if  you  believe  that 
this  rising  was  to  aid  the  purposes  of  the  society  and  to  aid  the 
French,  it  goes  to  support  the  overt  acts.  [Here  his  lordship  stated 
remainder  of  the  evidence,  and  that  which  was  given  on  the  part  of 
the  prisoner.]  Here,  gentlemen,  the  evidence  closed.  It  would  add 
materially  to  the  weight  of  it,  if  Alderman  James  showed  how  he 
acquired  intelligence  of  these  papers  being  upon  the  person  of 
Kennedy.  If  Lawler  told  it  to  him,  or  to  any  other  person,it  would  add 
to  his  testimony,  because  connecting  it  with  his  testimony  it  would 
fortify  what  he  said  upon  his  direct  testimony,  that  he  saw  them  with 
Kennedy.  But  consider  whether  it  is  possible  the  information  could 
have  come  from  any  other  quarter.  However,  at  the  same  time, 
you  are  also  to  consider  whether  it  might  not  be  an  after  thought. 
You  are  to  determine,  from  the  whole  testimony  of  Lawler,  and  the 
credit  you  give  to  him. 

Then  it  is  asked,  what  is  the  word  "  Defender."  There  is  nothing 
ci'iminal  in  the  word  itself, — it  is  a  name  assumed  by  a  set  of  persons. 
But  the  question  is,  Avhat  are  the  purposes  and  designs  of  these 
people?  Of  that  you  are  the  proper  judges.  If  their  designs  and 
intentions  were  to  adhere  to  the  French,  and  to  support  them,  the 
charge  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  is  supported.  If  their  designs 
were  not  such,  the  indictment  is  not  supported.  But  considering  the 
oath  and  the  test  together,  supposing  them  administered,  as  sworn  by 
Lawler,  they  shew  very  sti'ongly  what  their  designs  were.  That  they 
were  designed  to  adhere  to  the  National  Convention  of  France,  if  you 
believe  those  words  mean  the  Convention  of  France, — and  part  is  to 
dethrone  all  Kings,  if  you  believe  that  the  blank  is  to  be  filled  up  ;  that 
shews  the  design  of  the  Defenders,  and  the  witness,  if  believed,  shews 
the  design  of  this  man,  in  administering  it.  What  were  their  designs 
further  appears  from  what  Hart  declared  aloud,  at  Stoneybatter ; 
for  he  declared  aloud,  that  they  were  to  get  arms  to  assist  the  French. 


346  TRIALS    OF 

So  that  there  he  declared  what  the  object  was.     The  oath  and  test 
declares  it  also,  if  you  believe  the  evidence  of  Lawler. 

But  it  is  objected,  that  the  acts  for  which  a  man  is  to  answer,  must 
be  his  own,  and  that  the  prisoner  was  not  present  at  those  declara- 
tions. But  here  are  his  own  acts,  if  you  believe  the  witness,  for  he 
is  charged  with  administering  this  oath  and  test,  an  engagement  to 
assist  the  National  Convention,  and  to  dethrone  all  Kings,  if  you 
believe  these  expressions,  and  the  blank  is  to  be  so  applied.  What- 
ever the  designs  of  the  papers  were,  they  are  declared  by  the  prisoner, 
to  be  designs  of  Defenders,  and  to  be  his  own  pi-inciples  and  designs. 
So  that  if  it  appears  from  his  own  acts,  it  is  brought  home  to  himself, 
and  the  declaration  of  the  prisoner  agrees  Avith  the  declaration  of 
Hart.  If  they  do,  Hart  is  a  Defender,  and  explains  what  the  object 
of  the  test  is,  namely,  to  raise  arms  for  the  French.  But  this  is  said, 
not  to  be  a  conspiracy,  unless  it  was  a  consultation  or  general  talk 
by  a  meeting.  Why,  certainly  it  may,  or  may  not  aifect  a  person 
present,  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  of  which  you  are 
the  proper  judges.  But  here  it  is  sworn,  if  you  believe  the  evidence, 
that  Hart  spoke  aloud  in  the  meeting,  and  desired  those  present,  to 
go  out  for  arms.  That  was  a  communication  with  the  whole  com- 
pany,— to  seize  arms  to  enable  them  to  be  more  assisting  to  the 
French.  This  is  the  explanation  which  Hart  put  upon  it  himself,  in 
the  hearing  of  the  company,  and  assented  to  by  the  company,  for  they 
go  away  to  get  arms.  Then  he  tells  you,  that  some  of  the  company 
remained,  and  those  who  went  away  not  returning  immediately,  such 
as  remained  were  sworn  in  the  manner  he  described,  that  they  would 
attend  on  the  Monday  following,  with  arms,  to  go  and  seize  arms. 
That  is  an  act  done  by  Hart  not  to  an  individual,  but  addressed  to 
such  of  the  body  as  remained,  and  was  assented  to  by  them  all.  But, 
gentlemen,  I  only  mention  this,  as  obviating  a  difficulty  thrown  out 
by  the  counsel.  But  the  whole  is  for  your  considerrtion,  and  I 
cannot  but  observe,  that  all  depends,  upon  the  testimony  of  Lawler. 
Certainly  one  single  witness  is  competent  to  prove  the  crime  of  high 
treason,  although  it  is  otherwise  in  England:  but  we  must  go  according 
to  the  law  of  this  country,  by  which  one  witness  is  competent  to 
prove  the  fact.  But  I  say  the  whole  depends  upon  the  testimony  of 
Lawler,  and  before  you  find  a  verdict  upon  his  testimony,  you  must 
be  satisfied  with  the  truth  of  it.  It  has  been  stated,  and  no  doubt  the 
fact  is  so,  that  he  is  a  witness  subject  to  great  objections.  By  his  own 
confession,  he  is  an  accomplice  in  the  treason.  By  his  own  confes- 
sion, at  one  time  he  would  not  scruple  to  attempt  the  life  of  the  King.! 
At  present,  he  is  of  a  different  way  of  thinking.  Also  by  his  own 
confession,  he  did  not  shudder  at  the  idea  of  shedding  Protestant 
blood,  but  that  he  stopped  at  the  idea  of  massacreing  all.  These  are 
certainly  strong  objections  to  impeach  the  character  of  the  witness. 
This  man  is  a  competent  witness,  and  so  far  a  credible  one,  because 
if  he  were  not  credible,  it  would  not  be  of  any  utility  to  examine 
him.  You,  gentlemen,  have  heard  his  story,  and  you  have  seen  the 
manner  in  wliich  he  told  it  to  you ;  that  is  matter  for  you  to  consider, 
and  to  balance  against  the  objections  urged  to  impeach  his  character 
There  is  no  attempt  made  to  discredit  the  man  by  producing  evidence 


I 


i 


THE  DEFENDERS.  347 

against  him.  It  has  been  said,  that  there  has  been  no  attempt  by  the 
prisoner  to  shew,  he  was  not,  at  the  time,  in  Barrack-street,  where 
the  oath  was  administered,  that  fact  being  capable  of  proof,  and  in 
that  respect,  to  disprove  what  was  said  by  Lawler.  But  that  receives 
this  answer,  and  a  very  full  one  in  my  opinion,  that  no  particular 
time  is  stated,  and  therefore  he  could  not  be  prepared  with  the  proof 
which  has  been  mentioned.  Witnesses  have  been  examined  to  the 
prisoner's  character,  but  such  evidence  is  of  little  weight  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain,  Mr.  Baron  George,  and  Mr.  Judge 
FiNUCANE  addressed  some  observations  to  the  jury,  who  then  retired 
for  about  twenty  minutes.  When  they  came  into  court,  the  Clei'k  of 
the  CroAvn  addressed  them. 

Ceerk  of  the  Crown. — How  say  ye,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  have 
ye  agreed  to  your  verdict  ? 

Jury We  have. 

CiiERK  OF  THE  Crown. — Wlio  shall  Say  for  you  ? 

Jury. — Our  Foreman. 

Clerk  of  the  Crown. — Gaoler,  make  a  bar,  set  James  Weldon 
forward — How  say  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jvxry,  is  James  Weldon 
guilty  of  the  treason  whereof  he  stands  indicted  or  not  ? 

Foreman GUILTY. 

The  prisoner  was  thereupon  brought  back  to  Newgate,  and  the 
court  adjoui-ned  to  next  day. 


THE   PROCEEDINGS 

ON  THE 

TRIAL 

OF 

MICHAEL    MAGUIUE, 

AND 

JOHN  LEARY. 


Wednesday,  December  23,  1795. 

Brady,  Kennedy  and  Hart  were  this  day  brought  up  and  being 
severally  asked,  whether  they  were  ready  for  their  trials,  answered 
they  were  not,  and  an  affidavit  was  sworn  by  Kennedy  for  the  purpose 
of  postponing  their  trials. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — My  lords,  I  am  humbly  to  move  your  lordships 
to  postpone  the  trials  of  these  prisoners  upon  the  affidavit,  which  has 
been  j  ust  sworn  by  Kennedy,  on  the  part  of  himself  and  the  other  two 
prisoners.  The  affidavit  states  that  John  Le  Blanc,  late  of  this  city, 
but  now  of  Belfast,  is  a  material  witness  for  the  prisoners,  without 
the  benefit  of  whose  testimony,  they  cannot  with  safety  go  to  trial : 
that  due  diligence  would  have  been  used  to  procure  his  attendance, 
but  that  they  did  not  know  until  after  the  trial  of  James  Weldon 
yesterday,  that  Le  Blanc's  testimony  would  be  material.  The  affidavit 
also  states  that  this  application  is  not  made  for  the  purpose  of  delay. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — My  lords,  although  I  could  shew, 
that  the  affidavit  is  not  sufficient  to  induce  the  court  to  put  off  the 
trial,  yet  I  feel  that  it  is  my  duty,  unless  circumstances  made  it 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  public  safety  to  bring  on  the  trials,  to 
shew  the  prisoners  every  indulgence.  Thei'efore,  my  lords,  I  shall 
not  resist  this  application,  and  when  I  do  this,  I  yield  a  great  deal, 
because  from  information  which  I  have  received  since  yesterday,  I 
should  be  able  to  lay  before  the  court  evidence  to  support  that  which 
was  given  on  the  part  of  the  Crown.  But  at  present,  I  yield  to  this 
application. 

The  trials  of  these  three  men  were  accordingly  postponed. 

Mr.  Attorney-General — My  loi'ds,  from  this  alteration  in  the 
arrangement,  which  I  made  for  this  day,  I  am  not  prepared  to  go  on 
with  any  other  trial. 

And  thereupon  the  court  adjourned. 


THE   DEFENnKRS,  349 


COUNTY    COURT, 

Thursday,  December  24. 

Michael  Maguire  was  indicted  for  high  treason  in  compassing  the 
King's  death  and  adhering  to  his  enemies  ;  in  support  of  which  a 
number  of  overt  acts  were  stated,  the  principal  of  which  was,  that  in 
order  to  enlist  Thomas  Roden,  a  fifer  in  the  104th  regiment,  to  join 
with,  and  become  a  Defender  to  aid  and  assist  the  persons  exercising 
the  powers  of  government  in  France,  he  did  keep  and  detain  him  from 
his  regiment  for  the  space  of  ten  days  and  did  give  him  during  that 
time,  by  way  of  stipend,  at  the  rate  of  sixpence  per  day. 

The  indictment  is  not  set  forth  in  this  case,  the  prosecution  having 
been  given  up,  and  therefore  the  reporter  would  not  have  mentioned 
it,  except  to  notice  a  proceeding  which  had  the  appearance  of  novelty 
to  some  ;  but  being  sanctioned  by  the  approbation  of  thi-ee  judges 
may  serve  as  a  precedent  in  cases  under  similar  circumstances. 

The  prisoner  having  pleaded  Not  Guilty,  and  a  jury  sworn,  Mr. 
Prime- Serjeant  stated  the  case  on  the  part  of  the  Crown,  and  the 
witness  was  called. 

Thomas  Roden,  sAvorn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Attorney-General. 

Q.  Where  were  you  born  ?     A.  In  Staffordshire. 

Q.  What  brought  you  here  ?     A.  I  enlisted  for  a  soldier. 

Q.  In  what  regiment?     A.  In  the  104th  regiment. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  your  duty  in  that  regiment  ?  A. 
A  fifer. 

Q.  Did  that  regiment  come  to  Ireland  ?  A.  Yes,  please  you,  my 
lord,  it  came  to  Belfast. 

Q.  Did  you  come  with  it  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  ago  ?     A.  Three  quarters  of  a  year. 

Q.  Where  did  it  go  to  ?     A.  From  Manchester. 

Q.  But  after  you  came  to  Belfast,  where  did  you  go  to  ?  A.  To 
Dublin. 

Q.  Look  at  the  prisoner ;  did  you  ever  see  him  before  ? 

The  witness  hesitated. 

Q.  Which  is  the  man  ?  Point  out  Michael  Maguire.  A.  I  neither 
see  Michael  Maguire,  nor  Murphy. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Michael  Maguire  ?  A.  If  I  should  see  him,  I 
should  know  him. 

Q.  Do  you  see  him  ? 

The  witness  looked  about,  but  made  no  answer.  He  was  then 
desired  to  look  through  all  the  seats,  beginning  with  the  first  row, 
until  his  eyes  reached  the  dock.  After  doing  so,  he  said — I  do  not 
see  him. 

Q.  Look  again  in  the  same  manner,     A.  I  do  not  see  him. 

The  witness  was  then  desired  to  withdraw,  and  the  sub-sheriff  of 
the  county  was  desii-ed  not  to  suffer  any  person  to  speak  to  him. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — My  lords,  if  I  believed,  that  the 
witness  had  thrown  his  eyes  towards  the  dock,  I  should  desire  to  have 


350  TRIALS   OF 

the  prisoner  acquitted  immediately.  But  the  gentlemen  round  me 
say,  he  did  not  throw  his  eyes  to  the  dock.  I  shall  now  desire,  as 
has  been  practised  at  the  Old  Bailey,  that  the  prisoner  may  be  brought 
to  the  front  seat,  and  that  some  persons,  as  nearly  of  his  own  condition 
in  appearance  as  may  be,  should  be  placed  there  along  with  him. 

This  was  accordingly  done.  The  gentlemen  of  the  bar  retired 
from  tlie  front  seat — the  prisoner  was  placed  there,  and  five  or  six 
persons,  taken  from  the  crowd  of  auditors,  were  placed  along  with 
him. 

The  witness  was  then  brought  in,  and  desired  to  look  at  the  several 
persons,  sitting  in  the  first  seat,  beginning  at  one  and  looking  on  to 
the  other. 

The  witness  did  so,  and  after  looking  at  them  for  some  time,  he 
laid  his  finger  upon  the  head  of  a  person  who  was  not  the  prisoner. 

The  witness  was  ordered  off  the  table  and  the  prisoner  was 
acquitted. 

Murphy  was  then  put  upon  his  trial,  given  in  charge  to  the  jury, 
and  the  witness  not  being  produced,  the  prisoner  was  acquitted. 

The  coui't  adjourned. 


CITY    COURT, 

Monday,  December  28,  1795. 

John  Leary  was  arraigned  upon  the  following  indictment,  the 
caption  of  which  is  omitted,  as  being  the  same  as  that  set  forth  in 
Weldon's  case. 

The  indictment  contained  two  counts,  one  for  compassing  the 
King's  death  and  the  other  for  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  and 
the  overt  acts  laid  in  proof  of  both  counts  were  the  same,  and  were 
as  follows  :  1st,  that  the  said  John  Leary  did,  on  the  20th  day  of 
August,  in  the  35th  year  of  the  reign,  at  Suffolk-street,  in  the  parish 
of  St.  Andrew,  in  the  city  of  Dublin,  associate  himself  with  several 
false  traitors,  associated  under  the  name  of  the  Defenders,  to  aid, 
assist,  and  adhere  to  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in 
France,  in  case  they  should  invade  Ireland ;  2d,  that  he  did  meet 
with  other  false  traitors  to  confer  for  and  about  the  adhering,  aiding, 
and  assisting  as  aforesaid;  3d,  that  he  did  enter  into,  and  become  one 
of  a  society  united  and  associated  under  the  designation  of  Defenders 
with  design  to  subvert  the  government,  and  did  meet  to  consult  about 
such  object ;  4th,  that  he  did  so  associate  with  design  to  subvert  the 
Protestant  I'eligion ;  5th,  that  he  did  with  intent  to  enlist  a  liege 
subject,  to  the  jurors  unknown,  to  aid  and  assist  the  French  govei'n- 
ment  in  an  invasion,  traitorously  administer  a  certain  profession, 
declaration,  and  catechism  to  the  said  person,  to  the  following  purpose 
— "  I  am  concerned.  So  am  I.  W\th  who  ?  With  the  National 
Convention,  (meaning  thereby  the  National  Convention  of  France.) 


THE  DEFENDERS.  351 

What  is  your  designs  ?  On  freedom.  Where  is  your  designs  ?  The 
i  foundation   of  it  is   grounded  on  a  rock.     What  is  your  designs  ? 

Cause  to  queal  all  nations,  dethrone  all gs,  (meaning  thereby  all 

kings,)  to  plant  the  true  religion  in  the  hearts  ;  be  just.  Where  did 
the  cock  crow  when  the  whole  world  heard  him  ?  In  France.  What 
is  the  pass-word  ?  Eliphismatis."  6th,  That  with  the  same  objects 
he  did  cause  the  said  liege  subject  to  rehearse  and  repeat  a  certain 
catechism  (as  above  set  out) ;  7th,  that  he  did  with  others  procure 
the  said  person  to  enlist  and  become  one  of  a  society  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  subverting  the  government ;  8th,  that  with  the  same 
designs,  he  with  other  traitors  administered  and  caused  to  be  admi- 
nistered to  the  said  person  the  following  oath :  "  I,  A.  B.  of  my  own 
good  will  and  consent,  do  swear  to  be  true  to  his  Majesty  King 
George  the  thii'd  whilst  I  live  under  the  same  government.  More,  I 
swear  to  be  true,  aiding,  and  assistant  to  every  brother  bound  to  me 
l)y  this  application,  and  in  every  form  of  article  from  its  first  foun- 
dation, January,  1790,  and  in  every  amendment  hitherto.  And  will 
be  obedient  to  my  committees,  superiors,  commanders,  and  officers  in 
all  lawful  proceedings  and  not  otherwise,  nor  will  I  consent  to  any 
society  or  any  brother  of  an  unlawful  character,  but  will  observe  and 
obey  the  laws  and  regulations  of  my  committee  to  whom  I  belong 
determined  brother,  nor  in  any  violation  of  the  laws  but  to  protect 
my  life  and  property  and  the  lives  and  properties  of  my  brethren. 
And  I  will  subject  myself  to  my  committee-men  in  all  lawful  proceed- 
ings and  not  otherwise  during  the  reign  of  King  George  the  third, 
whilst  I  live  under  the  same  government.  I  likewise  swear  I  will 
meet  when  and  where  my  committee  will  please,  and  will  spend  what 
is  pleasing  to  president  and  company — I  will  not  quarrel  nor  strike 
person  whatsomever,  knowing  him  to  be  such,  but  will  live  lovingly 
and  friendly  with  every  one  under  that  denomination — I  will  not  rise 
any  fight  or  quarrel  on  account  of  my  present  intrus,  or  back  that  for 
unto  my  brotherhood." 

There  was  an  averment  to  both  counts  that  an  open  and  public 
war  was  carried  on  by  the  French  government  before,  and  on  the 
20th  of  August,  in  the  35th  year  of  the  reign,  and  since,  against 
"  our  most  serene,  illustrious,  and  excellent  Prince  Geo.  III.  King  of 
Ireland  and  soforth." 

The  prisoner  pleaded  Not  Guilty,  and  the  Sheriffs  having  returned 
their  pannel,  it  was  called  over. 

THE  JURY. 

Hugh  Crothers,  Benjamin  Woodward, 

George  Overend,  George  Armstrong, 

Daniel  Geale,  Edward  Armstrong, 

Samuel  Tyndall,  Archibald  Tredennick, 

Richard  Jackson,  James  Atkinson, 

David  Weir,  Cornelius  Gautier. 

The  prisoner  was  then  given  in  charge  to  the  jury,  and  Mr. 
Attorney- General  stated  the  case,  to  the  same  effect  as  in  Weldon's 
trial. 

William  Lawler  was  produced,  but  before  he  was  sworn, 


352  TRIALS   OF 

Mr.  M'Nally — Do  you  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  God,  and 
rewards  and  punishments  hereafter  ?     A.  I  do. 

The  witness  was  then  sworn — Examined  by  Mr.  Prime- Serjeant. 

Q.  Of  what  country  are  you  ?     A.  Of  Irehand,  Sir. 

Q.  To  what  i^i'ofession,  or  trade  were  you  bi'ed  ?  A.  To  the  Pro- 
testant religion. 

Q.  To  what  trade  ?     A.  The  gilding. 

Q.  Where  have  you  woi*ked  ?     A.  In  Ireland. 

Q.  Any  where  else  ?     A.  In  England. 

Q.  At  what  time  have  you  worked  there  ?     A.  In  the  year  1791. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  return  ?     A.  Two  years. 

Q.  During  your  residence  in  England,  were  you  of  any  society  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  society  ?     A.  The  London  Corresponding  Society. 

Q.  After  your  return  to  Ireland,  did  you  become  a  member  of  any 
society  in  Dublin  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Of  what  society  ?     A.  I  do  not  know  the  name  of  it. 

Q.  What  became  of  that  society  ?     A.  It  was  dissolved. 

Q.  Did  you  become  a  member  of  any  other  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Of  what  ?     A.  The  Telegraphic  and  Philanthropic  societies. 

Q.  These  were  two  difiex-ent  societies  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  name  of  any  person,  who  was  a  member 
of  eithei*,  or  which  of  them  ?  A.  John  Burke  belonged  to  them 
both. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  the  general  subject  of  discussion,  or 
debate  was  ?  A.  After  Burke  found  the  first  society  was  dissolved, 
and  he  was  expelled  the  College,  he  collected  ten  persons,  I  was  one, 
and  he  told  us  the  object  of  each  was  to  get  ten,  and  each  of  these 
ten  was  to  get  five,  as  they  would  have  a  number  sufficient  to  take 
the  castle.  One  hundred  were  to  get  soldiers'  clothes,  by  which  the 
citizens  would  think  the  soldiers  had  joined  them. 

Q.  In  the  course  of  last  summer,  did  you  become  a  member  of  any 
other  society  ?  A.  When  we  had  made  up  our  ten,  we  were  to 
inform  Bui'ke,  and  having  made  up  my  ten,  I  did  inform  him,  and  he 
got  a  room  in  High-street  for  the  diflerent  tens  to  meet  in. 

Q.  Did  they  meet  ?  A.  They  did,  and  he  called  it  the  Philan- 
thropic Society  ;  and  any  member  proposed  any  friend  he  thought 
proper,  and  he  accordingly  was  elected  a  member. 

Q.  Pray  sir,  have  you  ever  heard  of  any  party  or  set  of  men, 
known  by  the  name  of  Defenders  in  this  country  ?     A.  I  have. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  admitted  a  Defender  ?  A.  I  was,  in  Barrack- 
street. 

Q.  And  by  whom  ?     A.  By  Weldon. 

Q.  What  Weldon  ?     A.  Of  the  Black  Horse. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  manner  in  which  you  were  admitted? 
A.  By  an  oath  administered,  or  declaration  :  two  papers  were  read. 

Q.  Where  are  they  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  I  will  shew  them  to  you — look  at  these  papers  (pi-oducing 
two  papers)?     A.  These  are  the  papers  I  was  sworn  to  by  Weldon. 

Q.  Was  any  other  communication  made  to  you  ;  any  sign ;  or 
signal  ?     A.  Weldon  shewed  me  the  signs,  so  as  to  know  a  Defender. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  353 

Q.  Shew  them  to  the  jury.  A.  Wcldon  told  us  when  we  were 
in  company,  and  wanted  to  know  a  Defender,  the  sign  was,  to  put 
the  two  hands  joined  backwards  upon  the  top  of  the  head,  and  pre- 
tend to  yawn,  then  to  draw  the  hands  down  upon  your  knee,  or  upon 
the  table.  Then  the  other  answers,  by  drawing  the  right  hand  over 
the  forehead,  and  returning  it  upon  the  hack  of  the  left  hand  :  The 
person  in  answer,  or  reply  to  that,  draws  the  left  hand  across  the 
forehead,  and  returns  it  to  the  back  of  the  right  hand.  Upon  shaking 
hands,  they  pressed  the  thumb  of  the  right  hand  upon  the  back  of 
the  left,  and  not  to  be  afraid  to  hurt  the  person,  and  if  they  asked, 
what  was  the  pass-word,  "  Eliphismatis." 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  these  papers  in  the  possession  of  any  man  of 
the  name  of  Kennedy  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  told  Alderman  James,  that  he  would  find  them  with 
Kennedy  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  At  the  post-office. 

Q.  In  what  part  about  Kennedy  ?     A.  In  his  fob. 

Q.  After  you  were  sworn  in  Barrack-street,  was  there  any  mention 
of  any  future  meeting  ?  A.  Weldon  was  asked  when  there  would  be 
any  meeting :  he  said  there  would  be  a  meeting  in  Thomas-street, 
he  believed,  in  the  course  of  the  next  week,  and  he  would  inform 
Brady  to  let  us  know. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  were  sworn,  was  there  any  meeting,  at 
which  you  were  present  ?     A.  I  do  not  know.     It  was  of  a  Sunday. 

Q.  Can  you  form  any  belief  as  to  the  time,  whether  a  week,  or  a 
month  ?     A.  It  was  not  long  after. 

Q.  Where  was  that  meeting  ?  A.  In  Plunket-street,  it  was  Brady 
and  Kennedy  brought  me  there.  I  was  walking  on  a  Sunday  and 
they  brought  me  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  Leary  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Point  him  out  to  the  court  and  the  jury?  A.  There  he  is  in 
the  dock. 

Q.  Be  so  good  as  to  tell  the  court  and  the  jury,  who  were  at  the 
meeting  in  Plunket-street,  as  you  know  ?     A.  Brady  and  Kennedy. 

Q.  Who  else  ?     A.  I  cannot  say  exactly. 

Q.  Can  you  say,  was  Leary  there  ?  A.  I  think  the  first  place  I 
saw  him,  was  at  Stoneybatter. 

Q.  Then  am  I  to  understand  you  to  say,  whether  he  was  at  Plun- 
ket-street, or  not  ?     A.  He  might  be  there  for  all  I  know. 

Q.  And  do  you  not  know,  he  was  at  Plunket-street  ?     A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  meeting  at  Plunket-street  was  the  meeting 
at  Stoneybatter  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  I  do  not  mean  that  you  should  tell  exactly — it  was  after  the 
meeting  at  Plunket-street  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  saw  Leary  there  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  are  positive  you  saw  him  there  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  go  there  ?     A.  Walsh,  a  tailor  told  me  of  it. 

Q.  And  you  went  with  him  there  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  what  character  did  you  go  there  ?  A.  As  going  to  De- 
fenders. 

Q.  Was  any  person  sworn  at  that  meeting  ?  A.  Hart  brought  in 
a  young  man  and  another  along  with  him. 

2  a 


354  TRIALS  OF 

Q.  Was  there  any  oath  administered,  or  any  book  produced  ? 
A,  Hart  had  a  book  in  his  hand.  The  young  man  seemed  unwilling 
at  first.  Hart  said  the  object  was  to  assist  the  French,  when  they 
would  come. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  make  that  declaration  ?  A.  I  did,  and  all 
present,  or  else  they  must  be  deaf. 

Q.  Was  Leary  pi-esent,  I  ask  you  again  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  Was  there  any  objection  made  to  what  Hart  said  by  anybody  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  After  the  man  was  sworn,  did  Hart  do  anything  else  ?  A.  He 
had  sent  some  to  get  arms  that  night,  pistols,  and  swoi'ds  : — he  desired 
them  to  bring  what  they  had,  as  they  intended  to  go  out  that  night ; 
that  they  knew  a  young  man  at  one  of  the  houses  where  they  intended 
to  go.     Leary  seemed  to  be  a  little  in  liquor  at  the  time. 

Q.  After  the  young  man  was  sworn  did  anything  else  happen? 
A.  Hart  gave  the  signs  and  the  pass-word,  Eliphismatis. 

Q.  Did  he  give  the  same  sign,  that  Weldon  gave  you  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  purport  of  the  oath  administered  by  Hart  ? 
A.  No. 

Q.  After  swearing,  was  there  any  proposal  made  by  Hart? 
A.  He  desired  such  of  the  young  men  as  were  present,  who  had  not 
arms,  to  go  and  get  arms. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Had  any  one  arms  there  ?  A.  I  had  a  sword 
and  pistol. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  person  with  arms  ?     A.  I  did  not  see  any. 

Q.  Did  Hart  exercise  any  authority,  or  do  any  other  act  ?  A.  He 
was  a  committee-man,  and  in  consequence  of  the  persons  not  return- 
ing, he  desired  every  person  present  to  come  to  the  table,  and  lay 
their  right  hands  upon  it,  and  on  their  oath  to  come  the  next  night 
with  arms. 

Q.  Did  the  company  obey  ?     A.  Every  one  that  was  present. 

Q.  Was  Leary  present  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  he  was  present  just  at 
that  time. 

Q.  You  say,  he  was  present  at  the  time,  the  oath  was  administered  ? 
A.  He  was. 

Q.  And  at  the  time  the  declaration  was  made  by  Hart  of  the 
motives?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  After  that  conversation,  were  any  arms  taken  ?  A.  Not  as  I 
know  of,     I  saw  Murphy  since  ;  he  told  me  arms  were  taken. 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  Leary  ?  A.  I  had,  at  his  own 
place. 

Q,  When  was  that  ?     A.  In  the  course  of  the  week  after. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  of  the  proceedings  of  that  night  ?  A.  He 
said  they  went  to  one  house,  where  there  was  a  great  noise,  and  a 
ringing  of  a  bell — that  they  had  a  stone  to  throw  tlie  pannel  in :  he 
had  a  blunderbuss  in  his  hand,  and  Iiad  gone  round  to  the  corner  ot 
the  house  to  see  the  person  ringing  the  bell ;  he  could  not  see  the 
bell,  and  believed  it  was  in  the  chimney — not  seeing  it,  he  came  back 
and  struck  the  pannel  with  the  butt-end  of  the  blunderbuss  and  broke 
in  the  pannel,  and  also  broke  the  stock  of  the  blunderbuss. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — Where  was  this  house?  A.  At  one  side  of 
Blackhorse-lane. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  355 

Q.  Was  it  the  same  niglit  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  What  night  did  you  understand  it  was  ?  A.  I  understood  from 
Leary  it  was  the  same  night  that  I  had  left  them,  that  they  had  gone 
out.) 

Q.  What  more  did  he  say  was  done  afterwards  ?  A.  He  said,  he 
ran  up  stairs,  saw  the  person  ringing  the  bell,  and  tripped  the  legs 
from  under  him. 

Q.  I  forgot  whether  you  said  he  gave  any  account  of  what  became 
of  the  blunderbuss  ?  A.  He  said,  that  after  tripping  the  legs  from 
under  the  man,  they  took  away  the  arms  that  were  in  the  house. 

Q.  But  what  became  of  the  blunderbuss  he  had  ?  A.  I  understood 
from  him,  that  he  had  left  it  with  a  person  to  be  mended. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Hart  afterwards  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  Hart  as  to  what  passed  ? 

(CouKT. — Was  Leary  present  ?     A.  No. 

Then  this  is  not.  evidence.) 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant. — My  lords,  I  do  not  wish  to  press  it.  But 
here  was  a  direction  given  by  Hart,  and  I  want  to  shew  it  was 
followed  up. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — I  think  it  is  not  evidence  unless  Leary 
was  present. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  became  of  the  arms  which  were  taken  that 
night  ?  A.  Leary  told  me  afterwards,  when  we  were  walking  up 
Blackhorse-lane  and  we  came  to  a  house,  that  it  belonajed  to  a  com- 
mittee-man,  and  that  the  arms  were  lodged  in  a  hay-stack  belonging 
to  that  man. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — Do  you  recollect  the  day  ?  A.  I  do  not,  it 
was  either  of  a  Monday  or  Tuesday. 

Q.  Was  it  the  Monday  or  Tuesday  after  the  meeting  ?  A.  No.) — 
He  had  a  pair  of  woman's  shoes,  which  he  had  mending  and  was 
going  home  with  them  ;  we  went  up  Blackhorse-lane  and  we  turned 
into  a  house.  There  were  some  men  sitting  down,  in  a  place  where 
they  had  drawn  home  some  hay.  Leary  spoke  to  one  of  them,  whom 
he  told  me  afterwards  belonged  to  the  place.  He  pointed  out  to 
me  the  place  where  the  hay  had  been,  under  which  the  arms  had  been 
put.  But  the  hay  was  not  then  in  the  place  at  that  time  we  saw  it. 
He  said  the  man  told  him  a  person  came  to  take  away  the  arms  as 
the  hay  was  to  be  removed. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — You  say  there  was  no  hay  upon  the  place 
where  the  arms  had  been  ?  A.  There  was  not.  Both  the  hay  and 
the  arms  were  removed,  for  I  could  not  see  any. 

Q.  Do  you  say  the  prisoner  told  you  the  arms  had  been  removed  ? 
A.  He  said,  the  man  who  owned  the  place  told  him  that  he  gave 
notice  to  the  people  to  remove  the  arms,  as  he  was  to  take  away  the  hay.) 

Q.  You  said  the  owner  of  the  hay  was  a  committee-man  ?  A.  So 
Leary  told  me. 

Q.  Describe  the  situation  of  the  house  ?  A.  The  house  was  on  the 
right  hand  of  the  lane,  but  we  went  in  at  a  gate,  and  when  we  entered 
the  gate,  the  house  was  on  the  left  side. 

Q.  Did  Leary  tell  you  with  whom  he  left  the  blunderbuss  ?  A.  I 
do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  the  place  ?     A.  No. 


356  TRIALS   OF 

Q.  "Were  you  at  any  meeting,  after  the  meeting  at  Stoneybatter  ? 
A.  I  was,  at  Nolan's  in  Drury-lane. 

Q.  Were  you  at  any  other  ?  A.  I  was  at  Toole's,  the  upper  end  of 
Cork-street,  where  I  was  taken. 

Q.  Did  you  know  there  was  a  meeting  there  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  suppose  it  to  be  a  meeting  of  Defenders  ?  A.  It  was : 
after  the  army  had  been  after  some  of  them,  I  saw  Murphy,  who  had 
been  taken  up  and  was  afterwards  let  out. 

Q.  But  did  you  ever  tell  any  person,  that  there  would  be  a  meeting 
at  Toole's  in  Cork-street  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Whom  ?     A.  Mr.  Cowan  and  Alderman  James. 

Q.  You  told  of  this  meeting  ?  A.  I  told  them  of  it  before.  It 
was  after  I  gave  my  information  that  these  persons  went  to  Toole's. 
I  knew  they  were  to  meet  there  to  be  out  of  the  way.  Dry  and 
others  were  to  meet — but  I  had  given  informations  of  them  before, 
and  it  was  settled  that  I  should  be  there. 

Q.  You  talked  of  a  meeting  at  Nowlan's  ?     A.  Yes :  in  Drury-lane. 

Q.  Who  was  at  that  meeting  ?  A.  Coffey  was  in  the  chair  ;  Dry, 
Turner,  Cooke,  Hart,  Lewis,  Kennedy,  and  Flood. 

Q.  You  have  seen  all  these  people  at  different  meetings  of  Defen- 
ders before  ?     A.  I  had  not  seen  Lewis — Leary  was  not  there. 

Q    Do  you  recollect  any  particular  conversation  with  Hart  there  ? 

Mr.  M'Nally — My  lords,  I  object  to  this  evidence.  The  wit- 
ness has  sworn  that  Leary  was  not  present,  and  therefore  no  conver- 
sation can  be  evidence. 

Mr,  Prime- Serjeant — I  have  the  authority  of  this  court  for  this 
evidence  upon  the  former  trial. 

Mr.  Baron  George. — That  came  out  upon  the  cross-examination. 

Q.  When  did  you  discover  all  you  have  told,  and  why,  and  to 
whom  ?     A.  I  told  it  to  Mr.  Cowan  in  Grafton-street. 

Q.  Why  did  you  tell  it  ?  A.  In  consequence  of  what  Hart  told 
me. 

Q.  What  was  that  ? 

Mr.  M'Nally — I  object  to  that  question. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant. — This  is  not  to  affect  the  prisoner.  Surely 
the  witness  may  tell  what  was  his  motive. 

Court — Tlie  private  conversation  between  him  and  Hart  was 
objected  to  upon  the  former  trial,  and  refused  to  be  admitted  upon 
the  direct  examination.  It  afterwards  came  out  upon  the  cross-exa- 
mination. Any  motive  or  avowal  by  Hart  in  the  absence  of  Leaiy 
is  not  evidence. 

Q.  When  was  the  meeting  at  Toole's?  A.  On  the  Saturday 
after. 

Q.  AVas  there  any  general  proposal  of  any  kind  made  at  Nowlan's  ? 

Mr.  M'Nally I  object  to  that. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain We  are  of  opinion,  that  all  acts  done 

at  general  meetings  are  evidence ;  but  the  private  declaration  of  an 
individual,  not  communicated  to  the  body,  or  at  all  adopted  by  it,  are 
not  evidence. 

Q.  Was  there  any  general  jiroposul  made  to  the  meeting?  A. 
Ct)flfVy  wanted  to  know  what  number  of  Defenders  were  in  Dublin, 
thai  they  might  have  officers. 


THE    DEFENDEUS.  357 

Q.  Was  there  any  money  collected?  A.  None,  but  twopence  a 
piece  for  the  beer  that  was  drank. 

Q.  Was  there  any  proposal,  or  demand  for  money  at  Plunket- 
street  ?     A.  I  was  asked  for  sixpence. 

Q.  For  what  pm-pose  ?     A.  To  buy  powder. 

Q.  Was  there  any  money  given  ?  A.  I  said  I  had  none.  Kennedy 
gave  a  shilling  ;  I  laid  it  down  and  took  up  sixpence  and  gave  it  to 
Kennedy. 

Q.  What  brought  you  to  Plunket-street  ?  A.  Brady  and  Kennedy 
brought  me  there.     They  said  they  were  Defenders. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Was  there  any  signal  made  use  of  ?  A.  No  ; 
there  was  not. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Q.  You  have  sworn  that  you  believe  in  God.  Have  you  made  any 
declaration  to  the  contrary  ?  A.  Never.  I  was  at  a  meeting  with 
Galland,  John  Burke,  and  Le  Blanc,  who  would  wish  to  persuade 
me  that  there  was  no  Savioui*.  But  I  never  heard  any  one  say,  or 
deny,  that  there  was  a  God. 

Q.  And  you  always,  I  presume,  have  held  a  contrary  doctrine  ? 

CouKT. — He  is  not  bound  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — In  the  case  of  the  King  v.  Taylor,  Peake's  N.  P., 
as  witness  was  asked  as  to  his  belief  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  was  not 
thought  a  proper  question.  But  to  ask  him  as  to  his  belief  of  a  God 
is  a  legal  question. 

Q.  You  said  you  were  taught  to  believe  in  the  Protestant  religion, 
and  that  there  was  a  Saviour  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Have  you  always,  and  do  you  yet  adhere  to  those  opinions  ? 
A.  These  men  whom  I  mentioned  before,  had  with  their  doctx-ine 
almost  persuaded  me,  that  there  was  no  Saviour,  but  I  saw  since 
through  it. 

Q.  You  mentioned  the  names  of  Galland  and  John  Burke — why 
did  you  not  mention  the  Christian-name  of  Galland  ?  As  you  are  a 
Christian,  do  you  not  know  the  christian  name  of  Galland  ?  A.  I  do 
not  know. 

Q.  Are  there  not  two  persons  of  that  name  ?  A.  There  are  ;  the 
man  I  speak  of  was  an  engraver. 

Q.  You  have  seen  through  all  their  false  doctrine — how  long 
have  you  been  converted  ?  A.  Since  that  time,  three  quarters  of  a 
year. 

Q.  Was  it  since  you  gave  information  to  Alderman  James,  or 
before  ?     A.  It  was  before. 

Q.  You  were  a  Chi-istian  before  you  went  to  Alderman  James? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  that  the  truth  ?     A.  It  is. 

Q.  You  were  bred  a  carver  and  gilder ;     A.  I  was. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  serve  your  time  ?  A.  I  was  bound  to  Mr, 
Robinson  in  College-green. 

Q.  Does  he  now  live  in  Capel-street  ?  A.  I  have  seen  the  name 
over  a  shop  there,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  he  is  the  man,  or 
owner  of  the  shop. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe,  that  the  Jack  Robinson,  who  formerly  lived 


358  TRIALS    OF 

in  College-green  and  the  Jack  Robinson  in  Capel-street,  is  the  same 
person  ?     A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  Have  you  never  seen  him  in  Capel-street  ?  A.  I  might,  but 
not  in  that  shop. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know,  as  a  gilder,  every  man  of  eminence  in  that 
line,  keeping  a  shop  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  ever  seeing  at  that  place 
the  name  of  Robinson  up,  only  that  time. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  there  are  two  Cowan's  carrying  on  the  same  i 
business  in  Dublin  ?     A.  There  are  ;  himself  and  his  son. 

Q.  They  live  in  one  house  ?     A.  As  I  hear. 

Q.  If  there  were  another,  would  you  not  hear  of  it?  A.  I 
believe  so. 

Q.  And  by  the  same  rule  would  you  not  know,  if  there  were  two 
of  the  name  of  Robinson  ?     A.  I  have  heard,  he  is  the  same  person, 

Q.  How  long  did  you  live  with  him  ?     A.  About  three  years. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  bound  to  serve  him  ?     A.   Seven  years. 

Q.  Then  you  served  only  three  out  of  seven  ?     A.  That  is  all. 

Q.  You  were  a  confidential  servant  to  him  ?     A.  I  was  an  appren-  i 
tice  to  him. 

Q.  He  had  always  a  good  opinion  of  you  as  an  honest  and  fair 
young  man  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  he  had  at  one  time,  or  he  would  not 
have  done  what  he  did. 

Q.  What  was  that  ?     A.  He  gave  me  a  good  horse-whipping. 

Q.  He  never  made  any  charge  upon  your  integrity  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  Avas  the  charge  ?  A.  There  were  Avomen  who  used  to 
work  at  the  gilding  business  over  the  front  shop,  and  the  men  at 
carving  in  the  room  over  that  up  stairs.  There  were  some  small 
frames  missing.  Mr.  Twigg  and  one  Ryan,  wei'e  called  up  to  the 
gilding-room,  and  had  some  conversation  ;  Mrs.  Robinson  called  me  to 
go  to  the  master  for  a  shilling,  and  I  understood  that  afterwards  Twigg 
informed  him  I  was  listening.  I  said  I  was  not ;  they  brought 
me  up  and  charged  me  with  taking  those  things.  I  denied  it.  Mr. 
Robinson  brought  up  a  rattan  with  a  ferrule  upon  it,  and  he  laid  on 
me.  In  the  evening  Mrs.  Robinson  brought  me  some  supper.  I  could 
not  take  it  at  the  time  and  got  my  things  and  went  away.  I  went  to 
a  woman  who  had  nursed  me,  and  the  people  in  the  house  not  hearing 
me,  I  slept  in  the  out-hoxise  all  night,  and  Avhen  the  men  went  out  in  the 
morning,  I  told  the  woman  what  happened  between  me  and  Jack 
Robinson. 

Q.  Was  that  the  only  charge  against  you  ?     A.  That  was  all. 

Q.  Do  you  foi'get  the  punch-ladle,  Mr.  Lawler  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  charged  with  stealing  a  punch-ladle  from  Cham- 
pion ?     A.  Never. 

Q.  Were  you  never  charged  with  stealing  a  punch-ladle,  which  i 
your  mistress  sent  by  you  to  a  silversmith  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  are  an  excellent  workman  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  What  made  you  leave  Robinson  ?  A.  In  consequence  of  that 
leathering. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  left  Mr.  Robinson  did  you  go  to  England  ? 
A.  After  serving  the  remainder  of  ray  time  to  Williamson  in  Grafton- 
street  I  went  to  Gallagher,  he  having  spoken  to  me  before  I  was  out 
of  my  time. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  359 

Q.  (By  the  Court — Did  Robinson  assign  your  indentures  ?  A.  1 
was  informed  he  ran  away.) 

Q.  You  went  to  England  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  was  a  member  of  the  Corresponding  Society  ?      A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  honour  that  society  with  the  name  of  Lawler  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  What  then  ?     A.  With  the  name  of  Wright. 

Q.  What  Christian  name  ?     A.  William  Wright. 

Q.  What  was  your  motive  for  changing  your  name  ?  A.I  had 
listed  in  the  29tli  regiment  of  foot. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  with  that  regiment  ?  A.  About  a 
month. 

Q.  Y''ou  were  an  attested  soldier.     A.  I  was. 

Q.  By  vii'tue  of  your  integrity,  Mi*.  Wright  Lawler,  when  you 
deserted,  did  you  not  break  the  oath  you  had  taken  ?  A.  I  do  not 
know  what  oath  I  took.     But  I  took  one. 

Q.  After  you  had  deserted  you  went  into  the  Corresponding  Society 
by  the  name  of  Wright  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  it  usually  meet  ?  A.  One  division  met  in  Bishops- 
gate-street. 

Q.  Was  that  the  division  you  belonged  to  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  they  meet  in  the  day,  or  in  the  night?     A.  In  the  evening. 

Q.  Is  not  Bishopsgate-street  one  of  the  most  public  sti'eets  in 
London  ?     A.  It  is  a  wide  street. 

Q.  And  a  great  thoroughfare  ?  A.  There  are  a  great  many  pass 
there  ;  but  Cheapside  is  more  public. 

Q.  After  you  deserted  you  went  to  London  to  conceal  yourself? 
A.  I  did  live  there. 

Q.  You  went  there  publicly  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  publicly,  because 
there  was  not  one  in  a  hundred  who  knew  me. 

Q.  Did  you  walk  the  streets  publicly,  or  go  in  a  sedan  chair  to  the 
Society  ?     A.  No,  nor  in  a  hackney  coach. 

Q.  You  have  led  a  remarkable  life  since  you  came  to  Dublin  ?  A. 
An  honest  life ;  I  never  cheated  any  man. 

Q.  How  long  is  it  since  you  were  wounded  ?  A.  The  Philanthropic 
Society,  Burke,  Le  Blanc,  Flood,  and  several  more  were  together :  a 
man  belonging  to  Ringsend,  I  can't  think  of  his  name,  was  in  custody 
in  a  watch-house,  and  they  agreed  on  a  meeting  to  go  there  and  take 
him  out,  which  we  did,  and  one  Thompson,  who  had  a  hanger,  cut 
me,  when  I  went  in. 

Q.  (By  the  Court Was  he  a  man  of  the  watch  ?     A.  No  :  one  of 

the  Society.) 

Q.  Who  instituted  that  Society?  A.  I  acquainted  Burke  I  had 
made  up  my  ten. 

Q.  Were  you  not  the  root  from  which  it  sprung  ?  A.  I  made  up 
my  ten. 

Q.  Who  made  the  proposal  for  the  rescue  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  armed  as  well  as  the  rest  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  With  what  ?     A.  Pistols. 

Q.  How  many  ?     A.  Four. 

Q.  How  many  ball  cartridges  had  you  at  that  time?     A.  Not  one. 

Q.  Were  there  any  shots  fired  that  night  ?  A.  There  was  a  pistol 
fired. 


360  TRIALS    OF 

Q.  Who  fired  it  ?     A.  Am  I  to  answer  ? 
Court. — You  are  not  bound  to  criminate  yourself. 
Q.  Do  you  know  who  fired  the  pistol  ?     A.  I  do. 
Q.  Do  you  choose  to  answer  ?     A.  If  your  lordships  think  I  am 
bound  to  criminate  myself,  I  will  answer. 

Court. — You  are  not  bound  to  answer  to  criminate  yourself. 

Q.  Was  the  prisoner  taken  out  of  the  police-house  that  night  ?  A. 
I  did  not  see  him  that  night,  but  I  heard  he  was  taken  out. 

Q.  When  you   heard  the  shot,  you  scampered  otF?     A.  I  did  not  ' 
scamper  off. 

Q.  Wliy  did  you  leave  the  place  ?  A.  Because  I  was  cut  in  the 
hand. 

Q.  Who  generally  acted  as  president  of  the  Philanthropic  and 
Telegraphic  Societies  ?     A.  Sometimes  one  and  sometimes  another. 

Q.  Did  you  know  a  man  of  the  name  of  Lawler  there  ?  A.  I 
believe  I  did. 

Q.  Who  was  treasurer  ?     A.  I  was  to  one  division. 

Q.  On  your  oath  was  not  the  Philanthropic  Society  instituted 
originally  for  the  purpose  of  reading,  and  were  there  not  subscriptions 
for  the  purpose  of  buying  a  library  ?  A.  It  was  to  act  as  a  Philan- 
thropic Society,  that  was  the  name  they  put  on  it,  as  lovers  of 
mankind. 

Q.  Were  they  to  murder  one  part  of  their  fellow-subjects  ?  A. 
They  were  all  ready  to  do  what  the  Telegraphic  would  do. 

Q.  Was  not  the  Philanthropic  Society  dissolved  in  consequence  of 
a  sanguinary  proposal  made  by  a  person  ?  A.  The  Philanthropies 
were  to  meet  at  Nowlan's  on  the  23d  of  August,  the  same  day  the 
Defenders  were  to  meet  in  Cork-street. 

Q.  You  were  a  member  of  both  societies — which  were  you  to  meet 
that  day  ?     A.  I  went  to  Dry. 

Q.  You  went  to  the  Defenders?  A.  After  I  went  there.  Dry, 
CoiFey  and  Kennedy  went  with  me  to  Nowlan's. 

Q.  Did  you  not  leave  the  Philanthropic  Society  because  they  would 
not  do  an  injury  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Was  not  that  society  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  improvement? 
A.  Burke  and  Le  Blanc  proposed  reading,  writing  and  learning 
French,  whichever  they  chose,  and  they  subscribed  to  buy  papei* — 
but  it  was  a  cloak,  for  if  any  one  came  in,  they  could  do  nothing  to 
them,  as  they  were  only  learning  to  read  and  write. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — They  Avere  to  learn  French?     A.  They  were. 

Q.  Was  it  through  Le  Blanc  ?     A.  He  was  to  have  taught  it.) 

Q.  You  were  treasurer  to  this  society?  A.  Yes:  to  the  Pliilan- 
thropics  ;  one  part  of  it. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  examined  as  a  witness  in  a  court  of  justice 
before  the  trial  of  Weldon  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Never  in  England  ?     A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  a  charge  exhibited  against  you  in  England  ? 
A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  transaction  of  the  Dog  and  Duck  ?  A. 
There  is  not  a  man  in  England,  who  would  not  give  me  a  good 
character  as  to  that. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  charged  with  stealing  a  watch  ?     A.  Never. 


THK    DEFENDERS,  3Gl 

Q.  With  stealing  anything  ?     A.  But  by  Robinson. 
Q.  Did  Galhigher  throw  out  any  imputation  as  to  integrity  ?  A.  I 
do  not  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  Did  you  never  hear,  that  he  made  any  charge  upon  you  ?  A. 
Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  neither  he,  nor  his  wife  ?  A.  They  did  not :  after  I  left 
him,  he  gave  me  a  great  quantity  of  goods,  and  Mrs.  Gallagher  said 
it  was  better  to  keep  a  trotting  horse  than  a  gilder,  he  used  so  much 
coals  and  candles. 

Q.  Was  there  any  charge  of  cruelty  exhibited  against  you  in  that 
family  ?     A.  I  never  did  any  act  of  cruelty. 

Q.  Was  there  no  charge  made  against  you  ?  A.  No.  If  I  did,  I 
do  not  think  he  would  give  me  a  stroke  of  work. 

Q.  Were  you  never  charged  with  putting  out  an  old  woman's  eye  ? 
A.  There  was  a  small  bottle  of  eye-water,  and  it  was  said  thei'e  was 
spirit  of  turpentine  put  into  it.     I  was  innocent  of  the  charge. 

Q.  You  have  said  the  prisoner  was  not  present  at  Plunket-street  ? 
'  A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  part  of  Stoneybatter,  was  the  meeting  in  ?  A.  The 
corner  of  Arbour-hill. 

Q.  Is  it  not  at  this  side  of  the  Maypole  ?  A.  I  do  not  know 
where  the  pole  is. 

Q.  There  was  an  oath  proposed  to  a  person  unknown,  did  you 
never  see  him  after  ?     A.  Never  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  you  before  ?     A.  Never. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  enquire  his  name  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  Leary  that  evening  before  ?  A.  Not  to  my 
knowledge. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  that  evening  after  ?  A.  In  the  course  of  the 
week  after. 

Q.  But  after  the  meeting  broke  up  did  you  see  him  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  He  was  a  little  in  liquor  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  were  near  the  door — how  near  was  he  to  you?  A.  I 
do  not  know  whether  he  was  in  the  room  at  the  time  the  oath  was 
put. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  know,  whether  he  heard  the  oath  put  ?  A. 
No. 

Q.  Nor  whether  he  saw  the  signs  you  mentioned?  Will  you  swear 
he  was  in  the  room  at  the  moment  the  oath  was  taken  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  the  oath  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  How  came  it  that  you  heard  what  Hart  said,  and  did  not  hear 
the  oath  ?  A.  Thei'e  were  two  windows  in  the  room  and  some  got 
into  the  windows  to  prevent  people  from  looking  in,  and  some  got 
round  him  and  the  stranger. 

Q.  You  were  armed  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  did  you  carry  your  arms  ?  A.  My  sword  was  under  my 
coat,  and  pistols  were  in  my  pocket.  I  was  desired  to  bring  them 
there. 

Q.  They  were  concealed  ?     A.  They  were. 

Q.  Did  you  take  them  out  ?     A.  I  opened  my  coat  to  shew  them, 

Q.  Did  every  one  in  the  room  see  the  arms  ?  A.  Hart  did,  and 
several  saw  the  arms,  because  I  opened  my  coat  and  shewed  them. 

t 

i 
j 
i 


362  TRIALS   OF 

Q.  "Was  tliere  any  person  armed  but  you  ?  A.  They  said,  they 
were  not. 

Q.  You  believe  Avhat  they  said  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  There  was  a  man  there  armed  with  a  fiddle  ?  A.  There  was  a 
fiddle  playing  in  the  house ;  I  think  it  was  up  stairs. 

Q.  Not  in  the  room  where  you  were  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Where  was  the  house  broke  open,  that  you  spoke  of?  A.  On 
one  side  of  Blackhorse-lane. 

Q.  Was  that  matter  ever  made  public  ?     A.  Not  as  I  saw. 

Q.  No  reward  by  the  owner  of  it  ?     A.  Not  as  I  saw. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  make  any  enquiry  about  it,  or  the  name  of  the 
person  whose  house  it  was  ?  A.  No,  I  did  not  enquire.  The  day 
Leary  and  I  was  out,  he  shewed  me  a  house  at  the  right  hand,  where 
they  had  been.  There  Avas  a  gate  opposite  to  us,  and  they  went  over 
that  gate  to  the  house. 

Q.  You  did  not  mention  a  word  of  this  upon  your  direct  exami- 
nation ?     A.  I  was  not  asked  as  to  that. 

Q.  You  were  sworn  to  tell  the  whole  truth?  A.  I  told  nothing 
else. 

Q.  When  you  appeared  upon  the  former  trial,  did  you  say  a  word 
about  this  house — did  you,  or  did  you  not  ?  A.  I  did  not,  but  I 
knew  it. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  upon  the  last  trial,  anything  of  what  you 
have  stated,  Avhen  you  mentioned  that  Burke  was  expelled  from  the 
College  ?     A.  I  said,  I  belonged  to  the  society. 

Q.  But  did  you  say  anything  as  to  Burke's  proceedings  ?  A.  No, 
I  was  not  asked. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  upon  the  last  trial,  respecting  his 
sacred  Majesty  ?     A.  How,  as  to  Weldon. 

Q.  No ;  but  respecting  the  King  ?  A.  I  do  ;  Weldon  told  me 
when  I  took  the  test,  that  if  the  King's  head  was  off  to-morrow,  there 
was  an  end  of  our  allegiance. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  there  was  a  time  you  thought  little  of  killing 
the  King?     A.  At  the  time  the  oath  was  put. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  tendered  the  oath  yourself?  A.  What 
oath  ? 

Q.  Have  you  not  been  in  the  habit  of  administering  oaths  ?  A. 
At  the  times  the  Philanthropic  met  in  High-street,  there  was  some 
little  boys  carrying  about  the  books.  I  swore  them  not  to  divulge 
the  secrets  of  the  society,  nor  withdraw  themselves  from  it. 

Q.  Were  they  members  of  it  ?     A.  They  were. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  administer  an  oath,  not  to  give  evidence  against 
any  of  the  society  ?  A.  Burke  swore  the  ten,  but  I  do  not  remember 
what  the  oath  Avas. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Did  you  swear  those  little  boys  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  swearing  one  of  these  boys  with  a  pistol  to  his 
breast  ? 

The  witness  did  not  answer. 

Q.  Have  you  sworn  against  any  of  these  little  boys  ?  A.  I  do 
not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  you  did  not  ?     A.  I  cannot  swear  that. 


THE  DEFENDERS.  363 

Q.  You  can  swear  the  facts  without  an  intention  of  remembering 
what  you  swear  to  ? 

Witness  did  not  answer  this  question. 

Q.  But  you  do  not  remember,  whether  you  have  SAvorn  against 
these  little  boys,  or  not  ?     A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  I  ask  you  this,  have  you  not  sworn  a  great  deal  that  you  do 
not  remember  ?     A.  I  swore  a  great  deal  at  the  Philanthropic  Society. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Do  you  mean  what  you  swore  here,  or  your 
I  information  before  the  magistrate  ?     A.  No  ;  but  what  I  swore  at 
the  Philantlu'opic  Society. 

Q.  Have  you  not  sworn  a  great  deal  before  the  magistrate  in  your 
information,  that  you  do  not  remember  this  day  ?  A.  I  do  not  think 
I  ever  swore  Brady,  or  Kennedy,  or  Flood,  or  Coffey  to  that. 

Q.  You  gave  information  before  a  magistrate  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  swore  to  them :  now  do  you  remember,  as  you  sit  upon 
the  table,  everything  you  have  sworn  in  those  infonnations  against 
i  Leary  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Or  what  you  have  sworn  against  any  of  them  ?     A.  Yes,  I  do 
•  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  name  of  every  person  you  swore  against  ? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  Now  mention  the  names  of  the  little  boys  to  whom  you  admi- 
nistered oaths  ?     A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Recollect  the  names  of  the  little  boys,  you  swore  ?  A.  There 
is  one  lives  in  Castle-street — there  was  a  good  many,  and  I  did  not 
know  their  names  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  swear  a  Philanthropic,  a  Telegraphic,  or  a  De- 
fender, never  to  give  evidence  against  any  member  ?  A.  At  the 
Telegraphic  Society,  Bui'ke  and  a  gi-eat  many  more  were  present — 
one  of  the  men  wanted  to  swear  the  members  present,  and  went  down 
and  brought  up  a  book  :  two  or  three  were  sworn,  and  he  desired  me  to 
take  up  the  book  and  swear,  but  as  I  had  it  in  my  hand,  they  desired 
me  to  stop,  for  they  would  not  admit  the  oath  to  go  round. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  trial  of  Jackson  in  this  country  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  You  recollect  a  particular  witness  of  the  name  of  Cockayne 
upon  that  trial  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  I  ask  yon  on  your  oath,  do  you  know  of  any  design  against  the 
life  of  Cockayne "''  A.  There  was  Le  Blanc  the  Frenchman,  the 
night  before  Jackson's  prosecution,  and  a  man  who  lived  in  Capel- 
street,  belonging  to  the  Philanthropic,  knocked  up  against  my  window. 
My  wife  got  up,  and  asked  who  was  there  ?  They  desired  me  to  put 
on  my  clothes,  and  if  I  had  any  weapons,  to  bring  them  out.  I  did 
so.  They  told  me  we  should  stop  Cockayne  from  appearing  against 
Jackson.  We  went  to  a  house  at  Stephen's-green,  in  the  way  leading  to 
Leeson-street,  where  he  said  Mrs.  Jackson  lived — he  desired  us  to  wait 
till  he  came  back.  He  went  in,  and  when  he  returned,  said  Cockayne 
had  been  there,  but  was  gone.  He  then  went  for  Wallei-,  and  brought 
him :  We  were  walking  up  and  down  the  street  better  than  two 
hours,  waiting  for  Cockayne. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — W^iat  was  the  name  of  the  other  man  ?  A. 
I  do  not  recollect ;  he  lived  in  Capel-street.  We  got  a  glass  of  punch 
before  we  went  to  the  green. 


364 


TRIALS    OF 


Q.  Who  went  into  the  house  ?  A.  Le  Blanc.  We  went  afterwards  . 
to  Henry-street,  to  a  house  which  Le  Blanc  pointed  out,  where  he  I 
said  Cockayne  lodged  up  stairs,  and  said  he  would  get  in  over  a  little 
glass-case  :  he  desired  us  to  walk  up  and  down  the  street,  till  he  went 
for  Waller.  He  and  Waller  returned.  After  we  walked  back  and  for- 
ward for  some  time,  and  seeing  no  light  up  stairs,  he  thought  Cockayne 
had  not  come  there.  We  were  for  two  hours  and  a-half.  Le  Blanc 
said,  if  he  could  see  him,  he  would  take  him  out  of  the  way,  to 
prevent  his  appearing.  But  if  he  was  killed,  and  the  court  should 
know  it,  the  informations  he  had  given  could  be  read ;  but  if  we 
kept  him,  and  he  did  not  appear,  Jackson  would  be  acquitted. 

Q.  You  were  present,  and  one  of  that  party  that  went  first  for  the  ,. 
purpose  of  assassinating  the  man,  and  afterwards  determined  to  keep  i 
him  confined  ?     A.  I  do  not  say  we  went  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  You  were  one  of  the  party  ?     A.  There  were  four  of  us. 

Q.  Mention  their  names  ?  A.  The  man  who  lives  in  Capel-street, 
the  left  hand  side,  he  is  a  coachmaker ;  Le  Blanc  and  Waller,  who 
works  at  Jackson's  foundery  in  Church-street,  and  myself. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant — Whereabouts  in  Capel-street  does  this 
man  live  ?  A.  He  lodged  in  Capel-street  with  his  mother,  on  the  left 
side,  in  a  gate-way. 

Q.  What  is  his  mother's  name  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  part  of  Capel-street  is  it  in  ?  is  it  between  Essex-bridge 
and  Mary's-abbey,  or  near  where  the  lottery  is  drawn  ?  A.  I  cannot 
say. 

_  Q.  You  know  where  the  lottery  is  drawn  ?     A.  Yes :    it  is  this 
side  of  the  lottery. 

Q.  Where  did  Le  Blanc  live  ?     A.  In  Golden-lane. 

Q.  He  was  an  embroiderer  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — You  mentioned  that  at  the  meeting  in  Stoney- 
batter.  Hart  said  aloud,  the  object  was  to  get  arms  to  assist  the 
French  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  Leary  present  ot  that  time,  or  not  ?     A.  I  cannot  say.) 

Q.  (By  one  of  the  Jury — You  say,  that  Hart  desired  such  as 
had  not  arms,  to  go  home  and  get  arms ;  therefore,  I  conceive  you 
were  the  only  person  armed,  and  the  others  went  home  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  arms  ?  A.  I  was  the  only  person  armed,  that  I  know 
of.  Hart  desired  them  to  go  for  arms,  and  not  finding  them  return, 
he  desired  those  who  remained,  to  put  their  hands  upon  the  table.) 

Q.  How  many  remained  ?     A.  About  fourteen. 

Q.  How  many  went  away  ?  A.  At  the  time  the  young  man  was 
sworn,  there  were  twenty  in  the  room. 

Q.  Then  there  were  but  six  who  went  for  arms  ?  A.  When  Hart 
desired  those  who  remained  to  lay  their  hands  on  the  table,  I  beckoned 
to  Walsh  and  he  came  out,  but  said,  he  had  a  naggin  of  punch  to 
pay  for.  I  went  home  and  was  afterwards  informed,  that  they  were 
out. 

Q.  Was  the  prisoner  at  Stoneybatter  that  night  ?  A.  He  was 
there. 

Q.  Was  he  present  at  the  time,  the  oath  was  sworn  upon  the 
table  ?     A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Was  the  prisoner  ever  sworn  as  a  Defender  ?     A.    Not  as  I 


THE    DEFENDERS.  365 

know  of,  but  whenever  we  met  in  the  streets,  he  used  to  make  signs, 
and  shake  hands  as  Defenders  do. 

Q.  But  you  never  heard  him  sworn  ?     A.  Never. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — My  lords,  I  omitted  to  examine  the  witness  as  to 
the  papers :  upon  the  former  trial,  his  evidence  went  to  show  they 
were  found  upon  Kennedy,  but  nothing  more. 

Court Examine  him. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  seen  these  papers  before  ?     A.  Very  often. 

Q.  Can  you  take  upon  you  to  swear,  who  wrote  these  papers  ?  A. 
To  the  best  of  my  belief,  it  was  Hanlon. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Hanlon  write  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Can  you  swear  whose  writing  they  are  from  having  seen  any 
■person  write  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Is  there  any  private  mark  upon  these  papers  ?  A.  I  would 
know  them  anywhere. 

Q.  Is  that  an  answer  ?  A.  I  described  them  to  Alderman  James,  on 
account  of  their  being  much  tumbled. 

Q.  I  ask  you,  have  you  any  private  mark  upon  these  papers  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  them  in  the  possession  of  any  other  ?  A. 
In  the  hands  of  Coffey. 

Q.  Did  any  one  else  see  them  ?     A.  George  Lewis. 

Q.  Will  you  swear  this  is  the  identical  paper,  which  was  in  the 
hands  of  Weldon,  which  you  saw  in  the  hands  of  Kennedy,  and  in 
the  hands  of  Coffey  ?     A.  The  very  paper. 

Q.  From  what  mark,  can  you  say  that ;  and  that  it  is  not  a  paper 
wrote  by  the  same  person  ?  A.  I  took  particular  notice,  at  the  time 
'Weldon  swore  me,  of  the  hand  the  papers  were  wrote  in,  and  that 
they  were  damaged. 

Q.  K  the  same  man,  who  wrote  these  papers,  wrote  duplicates, 
and  that  they  were  damaged,  would  you  swear  to  them  ?  A.  I  believe 
these  are  the  papers. 

Mr.  Attorney-General Upon  what  occasion  did  you  see  the 

papers  in  the  hands  of  Coffey  ?  A.  Sunday  23d  of  August — when 
we  were  at  Dry's  in  Cork-street — Coffey  swore  George  Lewis  upon 
them,  and  Kennedy  put  them  in  his  breeches'  fob. 

Alderman  James  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Saurin. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  having  received  information  of  any  papers 
t  being  in  the  custody  of  any  person  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  From  what  person  ?     A.  From  the  witness  who  is  just  gone  off 
the  table. 

Q.  Of  what  papers  ?  A.  He  told  me  of  the  Defender's  oath,  that 
I  would  find  it 

Mr.  M'Naley My  lords,  I  object  to  this.     If  the  magistrate  took 

down  the  information,  the  writing  should  be  produced 

Witness I  had  a  written  memorandum  of  it,  but  do  not  know 

what  I  did  with  it.  I  gave  a  copy  of  it  to  Mr.  Carleton,  and  gave 
him  directions  to  search  Kennedy's  fob  for  a  particular  paper. 

Mr.  Saurin What  day  were  those  informations  given  ?     A.  I 

believe  on  the  27th  or  28th  of  August  last. 

I      Q.  Did  you  ever  issue  a  warrant  to  apprehend  Lawler  himself  ? 
A.  No. 


366  TRIALS    OF 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  of  his  being  apprehended  ?  A.  He 
came  on  Saturday,  29th  of  August,  for  I  was  particular  in  taking  a 
memorandum  of  that,  and  gave  me  information  of  several  Defenders. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  circumstances  of  Lawler's  being  apprehended  ?  ' 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  were  they  ?  A.  He  came  to  me  on  Saturday  evening 
and  asked  my  advice  or  opinion 

Court. — This  private  conversation  is  not  evidence. 

Mr.  Solicit  OR- GrENERAL. — My  lords,  where  it  is  necessary  to 
shew,  that  the  witness  came  in  voluntarily. 

Court. — That  appears  already  from  the  testimony  of  the  witness  i 
himself. 

Q.  Where  was  it  that  Lawler  was  apprehended  ?  A.  I  believe  at 
Crumlin,  I  was  so  fatigued  myself  after  the  severe  duty  that  week, 
that  I  sent  to  Messrs.  Godfrey  and  Atkinson  to  arrest  the  people 
assembled  at  Crumlin. 

Oliver  Carleton,  Esq.,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  Kells. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  any  directions  from  Alderman  James,  with 
respect  to  Kennedy  ? 

Mr.  M'Nally — My  lords,  I  submit  that  no  evidence  can  be  given 
with  regard  to  Kennedy,  who  is  not  upon  his  trial. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain Recollect  the  tendency  of  this  exa- 
mination. The  witness  gave  an  account  of  these  papers,  that  he  saw 
Coffey  swear  Lewis  to  these  papers,  and  that  Kennedy  took  them  up, 
and  put  them  into  his  fob.  Surely  if  it  appears  they  were  found 
there,  it  will  be  some  evidence  of  the  identity  of  these  papers,  to  go  to 
the  jury. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — My  lords,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  prisoner 
was  sworn  upon  these  papers. 

Mr.  Attorney-General The   only   object  of  Mr.  Carleton's 

testimony  is  to  let  in  these  papers  to  be  read.  What  effect  they  may 
have  is  another  question. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  these  papers  ?  A.  In  the  fob  of  Kennedy's 
breeches. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  search  there  ?  A.  By  the  particular  directions 
of  Alderman  James. 

Q.  These  are  the  papers  ?     A.  They  are. 

John  Atkinson,  Esq.,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Ruxton. 

Q.  Did  you  hold  any  office  in  this  city  ?  A.  Yes,  sir,  constable  of 
the  south  division. 

Q.  Did  you  get  any  directions  in  August  last  to  apprehend  any 
person  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  execute  those  orders  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  apprehend  and  where  ?  A.  I  went  to  Crumlin 
and  apprehended  live  people,  Lawler  was  one  of  them. 

Q.  You  took  him  by  the  directions  of  Alderman  James  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.) — Was  it  so  far  as  Crumlin  ?     A.  It  was  near  it. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 
Q.  Crumlin  is  in  the  county  of  Dublin  ?     A.  I  believe  so. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  367 

William  Finnegau,  sworn — Examined  by  Mr.  Solicitor-General. 

Q,  Where  did  you  live  in  August  last  ?  A.  In  a  place  called  the 
Blackquarry-road,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Stoneybatter  :  near  hand 
to  it. 

Q.  There  is  a  road  intervening  between  your  house  and  Blackhorse- 
lane  ?  A.  There  is  a  lane,  but  it  does  not  go  through,  I  am  nearer 
Glassnevin  than  Blackhorse-lane. 

Q.  Was  your  house  ever  robbed  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  About  what  time  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  :  it  might  be  in  August, 
I  the  beginning  of  the  month. 

Q.  There  were  some  arms  taken  out  ?     A.  There  was. 

Q.  Have  you  a  bell  in  your  house  ?     A.  I  have. 

Q.  Mention  what  happened  at  the  time  of  the  robbery  ?  A.  It 
was  on  Sunday  night,  that  I  am  certain  of,  though  the  witness  said  it 
was  on  Monday  or  Tuesday.  The  first  thing  that  alarmed  me  was 
[throwing  stones  at  a  window  ;  I  got  out  of  bed  :  they  threw  so  hard 
against  the  window,  I  was  afraid  of  opening  it.  They  then  broke  the 
pannel  of  the  door,  and  I  desired  the  woman  to  ring  the  bell. 

Q.  Where  is  the  bell  situated  ?  A.  In  the  yard,  there  is  a  rope 
Ithi'ough  the  house,  and  the  woman  rung  it  from  withinside. 

Q.  Were  there  arms  taken  ?  A.  A  brass-barrelled  blunderbuss 
and  a  fusee  and  a  couple  of  pistols. 

Q.  What  is  become  of  your  nephew  that  was  in  the  house  that 
night  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  :  he  made  examinations  of  that :  I  saw 
him  swear  the  examinations. 

Q.  He  swore  to  the  arms  ?  A.  I  do  not  know,  I  was  not  present, 
when  the  examinations  were  drawn. 

Q.  The  arms  were  produced  to  him  ?  A.  No,  they  wei'e  produced 
to  me. 

Q.  Did  you  hear,  during  the  time  of  the  robbery,  any  person  com- 
plaining of  the  ringing  of  the  bell  ?  A.  Wlien  I  went  out,  the  door 
being  broken 

Mr.  M'Nally. — I  object  to  this  as  illegal  evidence. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  any  conversation  going  on,  while  the  robbery 
« was  committing  ?  A.  Not  while  the  robbery  was  going  on,  I  did 
not. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  persons  say  anything  ?  A.  One  of  the  persons 
asked  me,  why  I  rung  the  bell.  I  said  the  reason  was  to  prevent 
;  myself  from  being  robbed. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Q.  You  say  it  was  a  woman  was  ringing  the  bell.     A.  It  was. 

Q.  Had  she  lived  with  you  any  time  ?     A.   She  had. 

Q.  Who  else  was  in  the  house  ?     A.  A  little  boy  and  my  nephew. 

Q.  Where  was  the  boy  ?     A.  In  bed. 

Q.  Where  was  the  nephew  ?  A.  He  was  up,  and  threw  the 
blunderbuss  out  of  the  window  and  it  was  broke,  which  displeased 
them. 

Q.  The  blunderbuss  that  was  broke  was  yours  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  Then  the  door  was  not  broke  open  by  a  blunderbuss?  A.  No, 
but  by  the  axletree  of  a  cart. 


668  TRIALS    OF 

Q,  Who  was  in  the  room  with  tlie  woman  who  rung  the  bell  ? 
A.  She  was  in  the  kitchen. 

Q.  Was  your  nephew  ill-treated  that  night  by  any  person  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  His  heels  were  not  knocked  from  under  him  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  He  never  rung  the  bell  that  night  ?     A.  No,  he  did  not. 

Q.  What  night  was  this  robbery  ?  A.  Eleven  o'clock  on  Sunday 
night. 

[The  papers  were  then  offered  to  be  read.] 

Mr.  M'Nally — My  lords,  these  papers  are  not  evidence  to  go  to 
the  jury.  They  stand  in  a  very  different  situation  from  what  they 
did,  when  they  were  read  upon  the  former  trial,  or  I  would  not  make 
the  objection,  because  I  consider  myself  bound  to  submit  to  every 
rule  laid  down  by  this  court.  It  does  not  appear  that  those  papers 
were  ever  in  the  possession  of  the  prisoner — ^that  tliey  were  ever  shewn 
to  him,  or  ever  read  in  his  hearing.  It  does  not  appear,  that  these 
papers  and  the  prisoner  were,  in  any  one  instance,  ever  together.  I 
conceive,  that  the  rule  of  evidence  with  respect  to  papers  is  this.  If 
the  paper  be  found  in  the  possession  of  a  man,  it  becomes  evidence 
to  go  to  the  jury  to  consider  for  what  purpose  he  had  it  in  his  posses- 
sion. Or,  if  the  paper  be  proved  to  be  in  the  hand-writing  of  the 
prisoner,  then  after  proof  of  that,  it  may  be  I'cad  in  evidence  against 
him.  But  if  you  recur  to  the  evidence  of  Lawler,  he  has  not  presumed 
to  say,  that  these  papers  were  in  the  hand- writing  of  Leary.  He  saw 
the  prisoner  at  Stoneybatter ;  there  was  a  paper  laid  upon  a  book, 
and  something  said,  which  he  does  not  know,  but  it  does  not  appear, 
that  either  of  these  was  the  paper  laid  upon  the  book.  Therefore, 
without  going  into  the  argument  at  large,  I  submit  these  papers 
ought  not  to  be  read.  If  it  did  appear,  that  these  papers  were  at  the 
meeting  at  Stoneybatter,  the  objection  might  be  weakened.  But 
there  is  no  evidence  of  that,  nor  that  they  were  read,  so  that  the 
prisoner  did  not  know  of  their  contents.  And  no  papers  are  ever 
read  against  a  prisoner,  unless  there  be  some  evidence,  that  he  knew 
their  contents,  and  assented  to  them. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant — My  lords,  I  conceive  that  these  papers 
ought  to  be  read  upon  two  grounds.  The  principle  upon  which  you 
have  already  determined  one  or  two  points  of  evidence  goes  directly 
to  determine  the  admissibility  of  these  papers,  independent  of  the 
ground  upon  Avhich  they  were  originally  offered.  The  principle  upon 
which  the  general  acts  of  a  body  are  admissible  against  an  individual 
of  that  body  applies  to  these  papers.  The  witness  says  he  was  sworn 
upon  these  papers.  The  signs  were  then  communicated  to  him  ;  and 
upon  a  meeting  between  him  and  the  prisoner,  there  was  a  communi- 
cation between  them  of  one  or  more  signs,  particularly  the  sign  of 
pressing  the  thumb  upon  the  back  of  the  hand.  The  ground  upon 
Avliich  these  papers  were  offered  is  as  explanatory  of  what  was  said  by 
Hart,  acquiesced  in  by  the  prisoner,  and  acted  upon  that  very  night. 
The  next  ground  upon  which  I  conceive  it  to  be  admissible,  even  if 
the  general  ground  were  out  of  the  case,  is  this :  These  papers  were 
brought  forward  in  support  of  the  consistency  of  the  witness  Lawler, 
to  show  that  he  had  at  different  times  made  the  same  declarations — 
that  he  pointed  out  these  papers  as  being  in  the  possession  of  Kennedy, 


THE  DEFENDERS.  369 

and  the  same  principle  which  induced  the  court  to  let  us  into  evidence 
of  the  place  where  the  papers  were  found,  calls  upon  the  court  to 
look  at  the  papers  themselves. 

Mr.  Attorney-General,. — My  lords,  these  papers  wei'e  produced 
at  a  meeting  of  Defenders.  Dry,  Coffey,  and  Kennedy  met  at  Cork- 
street.  Kennedy  produced  the  papers,  gave  them  to  Coffey,  who 
swore  Lewis  and   Kennedy  put  them  up.      This  goes  to  show  the 

system  and  design  among  them,  and 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — I  am  of  opinion  this  is  evidence  to 
go  to  the  jury,  in  the  point  of  view  mentioned,  namely,  as  evidence  of 
the  intentions,  schemes,  and  designs  of  the  persons  associated  under 
the  name  of  Defenders  ;  and  if  we  stop  this  evidence  it  would  interrupt 
the  train  of  such  discovery.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  is  evidence 
to  go  to  the  jury  of  the  proceedings  of  Defenders.  The  jSrst  meeting 
was  in  Barrack-street,  where  an  oath  was  administered  to  the  witness, 
and  certain  private  signals  communicated  to  him  to  be  introduced  by ; 
the  prisoner  was  acquainted  with  them  and  communicated  them  to  the 
witness  ;  and  thei'efore  the  papers  must  be  material  to  develope  the 
real  design  of  the  papers.  It  is  necessary  that  the  jury  should  be 
convinced  what  the  schemes  of  the  Defenders  were,  and  there  is 
nothing  more  proper  to  show  that  than  these  papers,  because  the 
jury  may  infer  that  every  man  associated  must  have  been  privy  to 
their  designs,  provided  they  think  the  papers  are  the  same,  and  of 
that  they  will  be  reminded  hereafter. 

[The  papers  were  then  read.     Vid.  Indictment.] 

Mr.  M'Nally  now  addressed  the  court  and  jury,  as  counsel  on  part 
of  the  prisoner ;  and  commenced  the  defence  of  his  client  by  regretting 
the  disadvantage  under  w^hich  the  unfortunate  man  necessarily 
laboured,  from  being  deprived  of  that  great  aid  which  all  men  derive 
who  have  the  good  fortune  of  being  supported  by  the  extraordinary 
and  brilliant  abilities  of  his  friend  Mi*.  Curran,  assigned  with  him,  as 
counsel  for  the  prisoner ;  but  who,  in  consequence  of  a  particular 
event,  was  precluded  from  appearing  in  his  pi*ofessional  chai'acter,  on 
the  present  most  serious  and  interesting  occasion.  But  though 
standing  alone,  he  said  he  would  rouse  his  mind  from  depression, 
though  weak  and  fatigued,  yet  he  felt  consolation  from  the  cheering 
recollection,  that  the  presiding  judges,  before  whom  he  pleaded  for 
the  life  of  the  prisoner,  were  not  less  eminent  for  their  constitutional 
principles  and  legal  knowledge  than  distinguished  and  I'evered  for 
their  patience  and  humanity.  From  the  jury  also  he  received  comfort. 
Some  of  them  were  personally  and  intimately  known  to  him — with 
the  characters  of  all  he  was  acquainted  ;  and  he  was  convinced  in 
addressing  them  he  submitted  his  thoughts  to  fellow-citizens,  from 
whose  wisdom  and  good  nature  he  had  to  expect  every  favour  and 
indulgence,  and  from  whose  verdict  the  prisoner  had  to  expect  such 
a  decision  as  would  be  consistent  with  minds  equal  to  the  arduous 
task  of  discriminating  between  right  and  wrong,  between  truth  and 
imposition,  between  affected  candour  and  hypocrisy,  and  of  adducing 
from  the  evidence  before  them  such  a  conclusion  as  would  fully  satisfy 
their  own  consciences  and  be  entitled  to  the  approbation  of  the  public, 
for  whom  they  were  trustees. 

2   B 


370  TRIALS   OF 

He  here  adverted  to  the  statement  which  had  been  made  on  the  part 
of  the  crown  by  the  Attorney- General,  on  opening  the  case  ;  which, 
he  observed,  set  foi'th  a  number  of  facts  that  did  not  afterwards  appear 
in  evidence,  and  which,  of  course,  the  jury  were  bound  to  expunge 
from  their  recollection  when  they  came  to  contemplate  upon  the  verdict 
which  they  should  pronounce,  and  which,  by  the  rules  of  justice,  must 
result  solely  from  testimony  given  in  proof  by  the  witnesses,  and 
credited  by  the  jury.  He  hoped  it  would  not  be  understood,  that  in 
making  this  observation  it  was  his  intent  to  insinuate  in  the  slightest 
manner  any  imputation  that  could  afiect  the  known  candour  of  the 
first  law  officer  of  the  crown.  No ;  on  the  contrary,  he  considered 
himself  called  upon,  having  this  opportunity,  publicly  to  declare,  that 
humanity  to  the  prisoner,  as  Avell  as  zeal  to  the  crown,  had  on  every 
prosecution  as  well  as  the  present  marked  that  gentleman's  professional 
conduct,  and  bore  honourable  testimony  to  the  benignity  of  his  mind. 

There  were,  he  said,  some  principal  objects  to  which  he  would 
presume  to  solicit  the  attention  of  the  jury.  These  objects  were  : — 
First,  the  oath  they  had  taken;  second,  the  pre-eminence  of  the 
great  and  sacred  character  who  prosecuted ;  third,  the  approver 
examined  as  a  witness ;  and,  fourth,  the  nature  of  the  evidence  which 
that  approver  had  divulged  in  support  of  that  indictment. 

He  then  proceeded  to  the  first  point  he  had  proposed  to  submit  to 
the  jurors'  consideration,  and  it  called  for  their  most  serious  attention, 
he  meant  the  nature  of  that  oath  which  they  had  taken  when  called 
upon  as  triors  of  the  prisoner.  They  would  recollect  they  had  sworn 
that  "  they  would  well  and  truly  try  and  true  deliverance  make 
between  their  Sovereign  Lord  the  King,  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar, 
and  a  true  verdict  give  according  to  the  evidence" — they  would 
recollect  that  on  swearing  thus,  they  had  appealed  to  the  Almighty 
God  to  punish  them  if  they  did  not  do  impartial  justice.  To  find 
according  to  the  evidence  was  the  obligation  of  the  oath.  Now  what 
does  finding  according  to  the  evidence  import  ?  It  imports  no  less 
than  this,  that  a  jury  should  not  find  a  verdict  of  gviilty  on  any  proof 
that  was  not  convincing,  cleai",  and  strong  as  holy  writ ;  that  was  not 
free  from  imputation  and  divested  of  doubt.  The  evidence  on  which 
a  man's  life  depended,  on  which  a  man's  life  might  be  the  forfeit 
should  be  unclouded,  unshadowed  by  uncertainty  and  clear  as  the  sun 
at  mid-day  ;  for  evidence  is  that  which  puts  the  matter  in  issue  on  the 
ground  of  cei'tainty  ;  where  thei'e  is  a  doubt  in  a  criminal  case  there 
cannot  be  a  conclusion  of  guilt  against  a  prisoner,  but  there  must  be 
a  verdict  of  acquittal.  Unless  every  man  on  the  jury  is  convinced  of 
the  prisonei''s  guilt  they  are  ruled  by  their  oaths,  they  are  compelled 
by  their  consciences,  they  are  called  upon  by  the  rigid  principles  of 
justice,  they  are  directed  by  the  imperative  voice  of  mercy  to  acquit. 
It  was  for  this  reason  that  by  the  old  law  pi'isoners  accused  of  capital 
crimes  were  not  allowed  to  exculpate  themselves  by  the  testimony  of 
witnesses — the  rule,  however,  was  weak  and  dangerous,  though  the 
motive  assigned  to  it  was  merciful  and  benign.  No  man,  says  Lord 
Coke,  should  be  convicted  but  on  clear  and  indubitable  evidence,  and 
that  is  the  reason,  continues  his  lordsliip,  that  prisoners  were  not 
allowed  witnesses  by  the  common  law. 

Mr.  M'Nally  now  gave  a  short  statement  of  the  indictment  against 


THE  DEFENDERS.  37 1 

ilie  prisoner.     By  tliis  indictment,  he  observed,  the  prisoner  stands 

;i  charged  with  two  distinct  species  of  high  treason,  the  most  enormous 

'  offence  tliat  the  hiw   recognizes,  or  that   the  subject  can  be  guiUy  of. 

;|  The  first  charge   is  that  "the  prisoner  at  the  bar  with  other  false 

I  traitors  did  associate  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  and  assisting 

■  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of   government  in  France,  &c., 

waging  war  against  the  King,  and  did  compass  and  imagine  the  death 

of  our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King,  with  an  intent  our  Lord  the  King 

I  to  kill  and  put  to  death."     The  second  charge  against  the  prisoner  is 

that  "  he  was  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  giving  them   aid   and 

comfort,"  and  both  these  offences  were  declared  to  be  liigh  treason 

'  by  statute  the  25  of  Edward  the  Third,  and  that  statute  expressly 

j  required  that  the  party   accused  of  high  treason,  be  thereof  upon 

!  sufficient  proof  attained  of  some  overt  or  open  act  by  men  of  his 

j  own  condition — that  is  by  a  jury. 

(  As  to  the  first  of  these  charges  it  did  not  appear  to  him,  that  any 
!  overt  act  of  compassing  and  imagining  the  King's  death  had  been 
j:  given  in  evidence  ;  and  therefore  he  would  not  now  urge  any  argu- 
".  ment  upon  the  law  on  that  species  of  treason,  or  recapitulate  those 
which  on  a  former  occasion  he  had  submitted  to  the  opinion  of  the 
court.  On  the  occasion  he  alluded  to,  his  objections  had  been  over- 
1  ruled  by  the  court,  and  certain  it  was,  the  judgment  of  the  court  was 
supported  by  the  highest  authorities  ;  authorities  to  which  he  must 
submit,  though  not  convinced ;  they  merited  every  respect  from  him, 
and  it  was  his  dvity  to  bow  with  reverence  to  their  judgment.  Here 
I  he  again  urged  that  the  law  respecting  the  first  charge  in  the  indict- 
l.  ment  need  not  be  stated  to  the  jury  ;  for  that  though  the  indictment 
spread  its  terrors  over  six  skins  of  parchment,  exhibiting  no  less  than 
sixteen  specific  overt  acts  of  treason,  yet  not  one  of  those  overt  acts 
applied  to  the  first  charge,  and  he  believed  the  learned  judges  who 
presided,  would  be  of  opinion,  that  only  two  overt  acts  had  relation  to 
the  second,  for  which  reason,  he  would  take  into  contemplation  only 
the  second  count,  and  those  overt  acts  which  appeared  to  support  it. 
As  to  the  law  on  the  second  count  or  charge  in  the  indictment,  it 
struck  him,  that  the  species  of  treason  set  forth  therein,  contained 
two  branches.  First,  "  being  adherent  to  the  King's  enemies  in  his 
realm,  and  giving  them  aid  and  comfort  therein."  Secondly,  "  being 
adherent  to  the  King's  enemies,  and  giving  them  aid  and  comfort 
elsewhere,"  that  is,  out  of  the  realm.  The  offence  charged  upon  the 
prisoner,  and  on  which  the  overt  acts  were  grounded,  was  clearly  the 
first  branch  of  the  second  species  of  treason,  "  being  adherent  to  the 
King's  enemies  within  the  realm,"  but  he  submitted  to  the  court,  that 
there  was  no  evidence  to  shew  an  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies 
within  the  realm ;  for  there  was  no  proof  before  the  jury,  that  the 
King  had  enemies  within  the  realm.  Perhaps  it  might  be  asked,  are 
not  rebels  the  King's  enemies  ?  Are  not  traitors  foes  to  their  Sove- 
reign ?  The  answer  is,  that  in  contemplation  of  law,  persons  of  such 
description  are  not  the  King's  enemies.  No  man  owing  allegiance  to 
the  Crown,  whether  natural  allegiance, — which  included  all  his 
Majesty's  subjects,  or  local  allegiance,  which  included  alien  residents, 
were  in  contemplation  of  law,  the  King's  enemies :  the  enemies  meant 
by  the  statute  of  Edward  the  Third,  were  to  be  understood  the  subjects 


372  TRIALS    OF 

of  foreign  powers,  with  whom  the  nation  is  at  open  war,  and  there 
did  not  appear  a  scintilla  of  evidence  in  the  course  of  the  trial  to 
shew  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  had  adhered,  or  given  aid,  or  had 
abetted  such  foreigners,  or  held  the  least  connection,  or  the  slightest 
intercourse  with  them  within  or  without  the  realm.  The  charge  he 
observed,  was  novel,  though  the  law  that  provided  against  it  was 
ancient.  He  doubted  if  there  was  a  precedent  to  be  found  in  the 
books  more  recent  than  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  He  had  seen 
one  in  the  state  trials  of  that  reign,  but  it  was  so  loose  and  faulty,  as 
not  to  be  an  authority.  Adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  without  the 
realm  was  a  more  frequent  offence,  but  no  such  offence  was  set  forth 
in  the  indictment,  nor  no  overt  act  of  such  an  offence.  The  overt 
acts  of  this  species  of  treason  as  described  by  the  books,  were,  writing 
and  sending  letters  of  intelligence  to  the  enemy,  supplying  them  with 
provisions,  or  warlike  stores,  or  rather  articles  of  a  similar  nature, 
not  one  of  which  overt  acts  appeared  in  the  indictment.  If,  however, 
the  court  were  of  opinion,  that  the  second  count  was  well  laid,  he 
submitted,  that  the  only  facts,  in  proof,  that  applied  to  it,  were  those 
which  tended  to  establish  the  fifth  and  eight  overt  acts,  and  that  he 
would  observe  upon  those  facts  and  the  credit  they  deserved,  when  he 
came  to  speak  on  the  evidence  given  by  Lawler  the  approver. 

Mr.  M'Nally  now  called  the  attention  of  the  jury  to  the  second 
object^ — the  prosecutor.     Who  was  the  prosecutor  ?     The  prosecutor 
was  the  King.     A  character  sacred,  pre-eminent,  and  paramount  to 
all  others  known  to  the  constitution.     A  character  to  whom,  politically 
speaking,  the  law  attributed  immortality  and  i")erfection — a  character 
so  elevated,  that  a  great  constitutional  writer,  after  mentioning  his 
prerogatives  and  his  revenues,  ascribes  to  him  so  great  and  so  trans- 
cendant  a  nature,  that  he  adds,  the  people  are  led  to  pay  him  the  most 
awful  respect,  and  to  look   up  to  him  as  superior  to  other  beings. 
But  that  respect  and  reverence  due  to  the   Sovereign,  must  not  inter- 
fere with  justice  ;  must  not  influence  a  jury,  bound  by  their  oaths  to 
determine  by  the  intrinsic  weight  of  evidence,  not  by  influence  arising 
from  extrinsic  causes.     The  strongest  proof  a  jury  can  give  of  loyalty 
and  affection  to  their  Sovereign,  is  to  administer  impartial  justice  to 
his  subjects.     The  jury  would  keep  in  their  minds  that  his  Majesty 
did  not  come  forward,  on  the  present  occasion,  to  prosecute  for  an 
offence   against   a  private   individual ;  but  for  an  offence   the  most 
henious  that  the  law  recognized  ;  for  no  less  an  offence  than  an  intent 
to  destroy  his  own  sacred  life,  by  bringing  war  and  desolation  on  the 
land.     The  horror  that  arose  from  the  contemplation  of  such  a  crime, 
nay  from  the  intimation  of  it,  must  strike  a  deep  and  sensible  impres- 
sion into  the  mind  of  every  man — but  he  conjiired  the  jury  again  to 
recollect  the  nature  of  the  oath  they  had  taken  ;  to  judge  solely  from 
the  evidence,   and  that   to   determine  fairly  tliey  must  divest  their 
hearts  of  all  passion,  and  their  minds  of  all  bias  ;  they  should  neither 
act  from  feelings  nor  from  influence ;  and  that  without  a  dereliction 
of  both,  however  worthy  the  motives  might   be  which  guided  them, 
they  could   not  decide   conscientiously,  the  issue  they  were  sworn  to 
try,  and  truly  to  determine,  between  the  King  and  the  prisoner. 

Look  now  on  the  Avitness — turn  your  eyes  on  William  Lawler,  the 
approver,  by  his  own  confession,  he  stands  before  you  a  principal 


THE    DEFENDERS.  373 

actor  in  the  perpetration  of  a  catalogue  of  crimes  the  most  atrocious 
and  shocking.  Contemplate  for  a  moment  the  transgressions  of  this 
miscreant,  in  which  he  would  implicate  the  prisoner  and  consider  his 
conduct  seriously  before  you  give  credit  to  his  evidence.  In  what 
character  does  he  come  forward  ?  In  that  of  an  approver,  that  is  a 
culprit,  who  being  charged  with  a  crime  or  crimes,  for  the  purpose  of 
saving  his  own  life  accuses  another.  It  cannot  be  very  material  to  a 
man  of  such  a  desci'iption  whether  he  convicts  the  innocent  or  the 
guilty.  A  wretch  who  by  his  own  confession  attempted  murder 
against  the  law,  which  would  have  little  compunction  in  committing 
murder  under  the  sanction  of  the  law,  when  safety  to  his  own  life 
was  the  reward.  He  said  under  the  sanction  of  the  law,  because  an 
accomplice  is  clearly  a  competent  witness,  whether  he  be  indicted  or 
not,  and  for  this  plain  reason,  that  if  the  evidence  of  such  a  man  was 
entirely  rejected,  many  crimes  of  the  most  enormous  nature  might  be 
perpetrated  with  impunity.  But  there  existed  a  general  rule  of  law 
in  such  cases,  to  which  the  courts  had  always  paid  a  tenacious  regard, 
and  which  must  strongly  imj)ress  the  jury,  when  stated  to  them  by 
the  learned  judges  on  the  bench,  it  was  this — that  unless  some  fair 
and  unpolluted  evidence  was  produced,  corroborating  and  communi- 
cating a  verisimilitude  to  the  testimony  of  the  accomplice,  that  testi- 
mony ought  to  have  no  weight  with  the  jury.  This  was  a  rule  of 
benignity,  and  he  would  venture  to  assert  that  the  law  reporters  could 
produce  but  one  exception  to  it ;  a  solitary  case  reported  by  Mr. 
Leech,  of  a  trial  before  Judge  Bullei',  in  England,  and  that  exception 
did  not  forcibly  apply  here,  for  in  that  case,  the  witness  on  whose 
single  testimony  the  jury  found  a  verdict  of  guilty,  was  not  impeached 
for  the  commission  of  any  oflence,  saving  that  individual  one  in  which 
he  had  been  2i  particeps  criminis.  He  did  not  appear  pied  with  an 
accumulation  of  black  offences ;  attempts  at  murder  and  conspiracies 
for  assassination.  The  jury  would  not  forget  Lawler's  confession  of 
faith.  No,  they  would  remember  that  though  he  swore  on  the  Holy 
Evangelists  he  at  present  believed  in  the  existence  of  a  God,  he  yet 
had  acknowledged  the  impious  fact  that  his  faith  in  the  Trinity  had 
been  shaken.  That  though  he  had  been  heretofore  instructed  in  tiie 
Protestant  religion,  yet  he  acknowledged  he  had  been  seduced  from 
the  principles  of  Christianity  to  the  sceptical  opinions  of  deism.  But 
impiety  of  a  much  grosser  nature  than  deism  would  be  proved  upon 
him,  by  witnesses  of  credit.  It  would  be  proved  that  ]\Ir.  Lawler 
had  not  only  openly  and  repeatedly  declared  his  disbelief  in  the 
Trinity,  but  in  the  existence  of  any  of  its  members ;  that  he  had 
denied  the  divinity  of  each  of  the  three  divine  persons  ;  that  his 
creed  admitted  of  no  deity,  of  no  translation  of  the  soul,  but  recog- 
nized only  one  melancholy  opinion,  that  "  death  is  eternal  sleep ;'' 
that  man,  like  the  inanimate  tree,  lies  where  he  falls,  sinking  to  all 
eternity  into  his  native  earth,  incapable  of  renovation  or  ascension 
into  future  life.  Such  was  the  diabolical  religion,  at  least  such  had 
been  the  infamous  professions  of  Mr.  Lawler ;  the  Atheist  and 
approver.  Such  was  the  infernal  instigation  under  which  this  un- 
believing witness  had  acted ;  whose  call,  like  that  of  St.  Paul's,  was 
not  from  infidelity  to  the  true  faith,  but  who  like  Julian  the  apostate 
renounced  the  precepts  of  the  true  faith  to  become  an  infidel  and  a 


374  TRIALS    OF 

persecutor.     To  him  may  be  well  applied  an  epigram  made  ou  a 
similar  character ;  on  a  wretch  who  having  long  professed  and  disse-  \ 
minated  the  precepts  of  Atheism,  received  the  Sacrament,  in  order  j 
to  qualify  for  a  place — 

*'  Who  now  can  think  recanting  odd, 

To  shun  a  present  evil 
That  wretch  who  oft'  denied  his  God, 

Has  now  denied  the  Devil." 

Such  is  the  delineation  of  Mr.  Lawler's  religious  theory ;  let  us  now 
take  a  slight  view  of  his  moral  practice.  Out  of  his  own  mouth  the 
jury  should  judge  of  his  morality — mark  his  confessions  in  the  course 
of  his  cross-examination.  He  had  been  discharged,  or  he  had  ran 
away,  for  he  did  not  positively  say  which,  from  his  first  master,  Mr. 
Robinson,  on  a  suspicion  of  theft.  He  had  confessed  having  taken 
an  oath  of  fidelity  when  he  enlisted,  and  having  premeditately  broken 
that  oath  when  he  deserted ;  of  having  solemnly  sworn  not  to  prosecute 
the  unhappy  deluded  youths  with  whom  he  associated,  and  whom  he 
had  seduced  into  clubs,  and  of  having  perjured  himself  by  the  breach 
of  that  obligation.  It  was  true  he  had  not  acknowledged  an  intent  to 
commit  murder,  for  when  asked  who  fired  the  pistol  into  the  watch- 
house  in  the  attempt  to  rescue,  he  refused  to  answer  that  question, 
well  knowing  the  consequence.  But,  was  not  that  refusal  a  tacit 
confession  of  the  crime  ?  Was  it  his  innocence  of  the  charge,  or  his 
prudence  to  avoid  punishment  for  the  crime,  prevented  an  answer  ? 
The  jury  were  the  judges  of  that,  and  the  jury  would  apply  this 
refusal  to  his  credit.  On  the  question  of  assassination  he  was  more 
candid,  for  with  audacity  and  composure  he  had  coolly  and  deliberately 
stated  having  been  one  of  four  who  had  lain  in  wait  to  put  Cockayne 
to  death.  So  that  this  witness,  on  the  credit  of  whose  testimony  the 
life  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  depended,  stood  himself  before  the  jury, 
self  arraigned,  and  pleading  guilty  to  charges  of  one  intended  murder, 
two  perpetrated  perjuries,  and  a  premeditated  assassination  !  Could 
his  credit  support  such  a  weight  of  accumulated  guilt !  The  act  of 
discharging  a  pistol  into  the  Avatch-house  might,  no  doubt,  by  the 
ingenuity  of  argument,  be  palliated  and  softened  down  to  manslaughter 
in  case  a  life  had  been  lost.  It  might  be  construed  into  an  act  of 
passion  with  malice  prepense ;  but  the  intended  assassination  of 
Cockayne  had  none  of  these  qualities,  the  intention  there  was 
blackened  with  the  most  implacable  malignity,  and  had  the  fact  been 
accomplished  would  have  amounted  to  murder  of  the  most  aggravated 
enormity.  Mark  his  coolness,  recollect  his  deliberation,  previous  to 
the  commencement  of  the  diabolical  deed.  He  was  awake  in  the 
night,  and,  in  the  night  he  arose  and  marched  forth  armed  for  the 
purpose  of  assassination!  Would  the  jury  credit  such  a  Avitness  as 
this  ?  A  miscreant  leprosied  with  crimes,  surrounded  Avith  fears  for 
his  OAvn  personal  safety.  A  miscreant  Avith  the  gallows  in  his  front, 
the  pillory  in  his  rear,  and  his  pardon  suspended  over  his  head,  on 
condition  that  lie  should  support,  by  his  testimony  in  court,  the 
information  he  had  sworn  to  before  a  magistrate. 

It  may  be  ansAvered,  and  indeed  it  Avas  thrown  out  on  a  former 
occasion,  that  the  jury  Avould  give  Mr.  LaAvler  credit  because  he  Avas 
consistent.     Is  not  every  liar  that  fabricates  a  scheme  of  villainy  for 


THE  DEFENDERS.  375 

reward,  or  for  impunity,  consistent  ?  Is  it  to  be  presumed  that  a  man 
of  Ml".  Lawler's  docility  and  cunning  would  not  corroborate,  on  the 
tabic,  in  the  face  of  the  court,  what  he  had  previously  promulged  and 
sworn  before  Alderman  James  ?  Every  man  knows  the  melancholy 
story  of  the  unfortunate  youths  who  suffered  an  ignominious  death  in 
London,  from  the  perjured  evidence  of  Salmon  and  Geoghegan. 
These  wretches  swore  away  the  lives  of  their  fellow-creatures,  to 
acquire  rewards  given  by  statute,  on  conviction  for  highway  robberies, 
and  their  evidence  was  always  consistent — so  was  the  evidence  of 
Titus  Oates  and  his  associates,  and  so  w^ould  the  evidence  of  conspi- 
ratoi's,  such  as  Mr.  Lawler,  ever  be  found. 

Mr.  M'Nally  having  concluded  his  description  of  the  approver, 
proceeded  to  observe  upon  such  parts  of  the  evidence  as,  he  said, 
appeared  material  in  the  case,  if  anything  could  appear  material 
coming  from  the  mouth  of  such  a  man  ;  and  as  he  thought  the  whole 
should  be  narrowed  to  what  had  been  sworn  to  have  passed  at  the 
meeting  at  Stoney batter,  he  would  confine  himself  to  the  facts 
respecting  that  meeting. 

It  had  been  sworn  by  Mr.  Lawler  that  the  prisoner  had  been  there, 
at  a  meeting  of  a  society  calling  themselves  Defenders,  but  it  did  not 
appear  that  he  ever  attended  that  society  a  second  time,  a  circumstance 
which  must  impress  the  juiy  with  a  belief  that,  if  he  had  been  even 
there,  he  was  disgusted  with  their  proceedings,  and  dropped  their 
association.  He  was  not,  however,  answerable  as  a  traitor,  even  if 
he  had  been  present  at  one  meeting  and  saw  and  heard  what  passed, 
for  he  only  concealed  what  he  had  seen  or  heard,  without  showing  an 
approbation  by  a  second  visit,  and  to  conceal  treason  except  in  case 
of  an  actual  conspiracy  to  kill  the  King,  was  not  treason,  but  only  a 
misprision ;  a  crime  of  a  different  species  from  that  on  which  the 
prisoner  was  indicted. 

The  most  serious  part  of  the  overt  acts,  he  conceived,  to  consist 
in  taking  those  oaths  or  obligations  which  had  been  read  from  the 
papers  found  by  Mr.  Carleton,  the  peace  officer,  on  the  person  of 
Kennedy.     But  was  there  any  evidence  to  support  that  overt  act — 
was  there  any  proof  that  the  prisoner  had  taken  oaths,  or  either  of 
them  ?     Not  an  iota  of  proof ! — not  so  much  as  a  reasonable  presump- 
tion ;  for  there  was  not  proof  that  he  had  ever  read  those  papers,  or 
had  even  heard  them  read,  or  was  present  when  any  oath  of  any  kind 
was  administered.     Neither  was  it  in  proof,  before  the  jury,  that  the 
papers  which  lay  on  the  table  in  the  house  at  Stoneybatter  contained 
an  oath  or  obligation,  nor  was  it  pretended  that  such  paper  was  one 
of  those  which  had  been  admitted  to  be  read  in  evidence  by  the 
court.     A  person  named  Hart,  as  sworn  by  the  approver,  had  put  his 
hand  upon  a  paper  that  lay  on  the  table ;  but  the  approver  declared 
he  did  not  hear  anything  that  had  passed  on  that  occasion,  so  that 
for  aught  he  knew  nothing  had  passed,  and  if  anything  of  consequence 
did  pass,  or  if  any  thing  treasonable  was  said,  it  was  equally  clear 
that  the  prisoner  had  not  heard  or  seen  anything  ;  but  it  appeared 
he  was  in  liquor — it  appeared  he  was  so  situated  that  he  could  neither 
hear  what  was  said  nor  see  what  was  done. 

He  then  urged  that  no  intimacy  had  appeared  by  evidence  to  have 
subsisted  between  the  approver  and  prisoner  on  any  other  occasion. 


376  TRIALS  OF 

He  had  not  been  on  the  party  at  the  watch-house  when  the  approver 
was  wounded  in  attempting  to  commit  murder.  He  had  not  been 
called  upon  to  join  the  conspirators  who  premeditated  the  assassination 
of  Cockayne  ;  in  short,  it  did  not  appear  he  had  been  at  any  meeting 
but  one  at  Stoneybatter  ;  and  there  was  no  satisfactory  evidence 
before  the  jury,  even  from  the  approver  himself,  that  any  ti*eason  was 
agitated  at  that  meeting  in  the  presence  or  hearing,  or  by  the  assent 
of  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  M'Nally  now  touched  on  the  difference  of  the  statute  law  in 
cases  of  high  treason,  in  England  and  Ireland.  In  England,  he 
observed,  the  prisoner  would  not  have  been  put  upon  his  defence,  but 
must  have  been  acquitted  on  the  evidence  given  for  the  crown ;  for 
there  one  witness,  though  perfectly  credible,  as  well  as  competent, 
could  not  affect  a  prisoner  charged  with  high  treason — there  the 
legislature,  jealous  of  crown  pi-osecutions,  and  tenacious  of  the  subject's 
safety,  had  prudently  and  cautiously  provided,  that  to  sanction  and 
support  a  conviction  of  high  treason,  there  must  be  two  credible 
witnesses  to  one  overt  act,  or  one  credible  witness  to  one  overt 
act  and  a  second  witness  to  another  overt  act  of  the  same  species 
of  treason.*  The  Irish  statute  had  not  adopted  a  similar  provision, 
and  as  the  parliamentary  law  of  England  had  no  force,  and  he 
trusted  never  would  have  force  in  Ireland,  he  could  not  urge  the 
English  statute  as  an  authority,  though  he  would  venture  to  state 
it  as  containing  a  principle  wise  and  salutary,  and  which  should 
have  weight  with  the  jury  as  being  derived  from  the  common  law, 
which  was  the  same  in  both  countries.  The  principle  was  this  that 
one  man's  oath  was  as  good,  in  point  of  law,  as  another's,  and  there- 
fore in  perjury  there  must  be  two  witnesses  at  least  to  convict ;  for 
the  oath  of  the  single  person  charged  was  as  strong  and  conclusive 
evidence  of  his  innocence  as  the  oath  of  the  person  charging  was  of 
his  guilt.  This  rule  applied,  with  gi'eat  effect,  to  cases  of  high 
treason,  because  as  every  man  living  within  the  realm,  under  the 
protection  of  the  laws,  owed  in  return  for  that  protection  allegiance  to 
the  crown,  which  lie  could  not  transfer  or  divest  himself  of,  that  oath 
of  allegiance  ballanced  in  the  scale  of  justice  the  oath  of  any  single 
witness.  Every  man  is  presumed  to  have  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance ; 
the  jury  must  presume  that  Leary,  the  prisoner,  had  taken  that  oath, 
and  that  oath  should  not  only  counterpoise,  but  preponderate  against 
the  oath  of  Lawler  whose  credit  was  impeached,  shaken,  nay,  sapped 
and  overturned  by  his  own  confession  of  having  broke  the  oath  of 
attestation,  which  he  had  solemnly  sworn,  when  he  enlisted  and 
promised  true  faith,  allegiance,  and  loyalty  to  his  Majesty. 

When  the  jury  took  these  observations  into  their  consideration  he 
trusted  they  would  not  convict  a  man  upon  evidence  impeachable  and 
inconclusive  ;  evidence  which  could  only  raise  a  presumption  of  guilt. 
If  any  treason  appeared  he  submitted  it  was  but  constructive  treasonf 
— what  was  construction  ?  The  best  lives  that  England  ever  boasted, 
the  greatest  characters  that  ever  served  their  country  and  supported 

*  See  Memoir  of  Rov.  Wni.  Jackson. 

t  See  the  speech  of  Eiskine  on  constructive  treason.  Trial  of  Lord  George 
Gordon,  Howell's  St.  Tr. 


THE  DEFENDERS.  377 

its  constitution,  had  been  sacrificed  to  construction.  It  was  a  boundless 
ocean  witliout  limits.  Should  a  jury  venture  on  it,  they  would  find 
themselves  without  compass,  without  sail,  without  rudder,  without 
chart  to  guide  them — they  would  be  tost  by  the  undulation  of  every 
wave  and  sported  with  by  every  storm ;  till  striking  upon  some  sunken 
rock,  or  di-awn  into  some  whirlpool,  they  and  their  bark  would  be 
dashed  to  pieces,  or  foundering  sink  into  a  treacherous  abyss !  It 
was  on  certainty  a  jury  would  found  their  verdict ;  certainty  resulting 
from  the  conviction  of  unimpeached  evidence.  Construction  was  at 
best  a  scheme  of  chance,  a  wheel  from  whence  the  properties,  the 
liberties  and  lives  of  the  most  upright  and  honourable  might  by 
degrees  be  drawn  at  the  will  of  the  directors,  till  every  man  of  worth 
and  estimation  in  the  country  dropped  off  as  by  lottery. 

Mr.  M'Naley  concluded  by  again  adverting  to  the  heinousness  of 
the  crime  charged  upon  the  prisoner,  and  described  to  the  jury  the 
dreadful  sentence  and  horrid  execution  which  would  inevitably  succeed 
a  verdict  of  conviction.  It  was,  he  said,  the  cruel  invention  of  savage 
and  barbarous  times ;  the  most  severe  that  stained  with  blood  the 
black  page  of  the  criminal  code.  It  was  the  vindictive  sentence  of 
irritated  and  insatiate  vengeance,  not  the  punishment  of  pure  and 
unimpassioned  justice.  It  was  not  confined  to  death,  but  extended 
to  torture,  mutilating  and  disfiguring  the  dignified  image  of  God,  after 
whose  form  we  were  taught  to  believe  man  was  made.  But  it  went 
further  than  even  the  destruction  of  the  offending  object,  it  visited 
the  sins  of  the  father  upon  the  innocent  children,  by  tainting  and 
corrupting  the  current  of  their  blood  ;  by  marking  them  like  the 
devoted  offspring  of  the  first  murderer,  turning  them  abroad  wanderers, 
outcasts  and  vagrants  over  the  face  of  the  earth. 

Samuel  Galland,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  M'Naely. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  Lawler,  alias  Wright  ?  A.  I  know  him 
by  the  name  of  Lawler. 

Q.  From  the  general  character  which  he  bears  in  life,  do  you 
consider  him  to  be  a  man,  who  ought  to  have  credit  upon  his  oath, 
giving  evidence  in  a  court  of  justice  ?     A.  I  do  not. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Prime- Serjeant. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?     A.  In  Crane-lane. 

Q.  Of  what  business  are  you  ?  A.  I  am  a  grocer,  but  served  my 
time  to  a  hair-dresser. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  there  ?  A.  Since  I  was  two  years 
old.     I  am  near  twenty-one  years  there. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  grocer  ?     A.  Two  years. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  a  member  of  a  society  ?  A.  I  was  of  a  reading 
society. 

Q.  What  was  the  name  of  it  ?  A.  It  had  no  name,  it  was  so  young, 
before  I  left  it. 

Q.  What  did  you  read  ?  A.  The  papers  of  the  day  :  Chambers' 
Dictionary. 

Q.  It  was  not  politics  you  read  ?  A.  Not  at  all.  In  the  course  of 
conversation  it  might ;  but  it  was  not  the  principal  part. 

Q.  Was  it  not  the  principal  motive  for  introducing  those  clubs  ? 
A.  Not  when  I  was  a  member  of  it. 


378  TRIALS  OF 

Q.  When  was  this  club  established  ?  A.  Some  time  after  Lawler 
came  from  England,  he  asked  me,  was  there  any  society  in  Dublin  ? 
I  said,  No  : — He  said,  there  might  be  some  reading  society,  and  he 
asked  me  to  become  a  member,  and  my  brother,  and  others. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  a  member  of  any  other  society  ?     A.  Never. 

Q.  Was  not  your  brother  a  member  of  the  Philanthropic  ?  A.  I 
believe  he  was. 

Q.  Was  not  he  a  member  of  the  Telegraphic  ?  A.  No ;  I  believe 
not. 

Q.  You  say  you  are  a  grocer  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  deal  in  spirits  ?     A.  No :  tea,  and  sugar  only. 

Q.  Was  your  brother  a  member  of  that  society  which  expired  so 
soon  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  such  a  society,  as  Defenders?  A.  I  have 
heard  of  them  as  a  body,  but  not  as  a  society. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  such  a  society  exists  ?  A.  I  believe  they 
exist,  when  men  have  fallen  sacrifices  to  it. 

Q.  What  do  you  believe  are  their  designs — were  they  not  criminal  ? 
A.  I  cannot  say — I  should  think  they  were  criminal. 

Q.  Have  the  goodness  to  tell  us,  why  you  did  not  continue  in  the 
society,  as  well  as  your  brother  ?  A.  I  had  not  time,  and  I  deserted 
it,  before  it  was  dissolved.  They  were  scrambling  about  a  chairman 
and  secretary,  and  party  matters,  and  there  was  no  knowledge  to  be 
acquired,  but  noise  and  confusion. 

Q,  Was  Burke  a  member  of  that  society  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  the  names  of  any  others  ?  A.  Not  many. 
There  was  myself,  my  brother,  Lawler,  an  acquaintance  of  Lawler's, 
one  Strut,  in  short  there  was  not  many — twelve  or  fourteen. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Le  Blanc  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  AVas  he  a  member  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  acquainted  with  him  ?  A.  Some  time 
after  Lawler  came  from  England.  It  was  through  Lawler,  I  became 
acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Leary  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Dry  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Weldon  ?  A.  No ;  I  never  saw  him  until  his 
trial. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Brady  or  Kennedy  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Coffey  ?     A.  I  did  know  one  Coffey. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Flood  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Clayton?     A.  No. 

Q.  Lewis?     A.  No. 

Q.  Hanlon?     A.  No. 

Q.  Hart?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  knew  only  Coffey  ?  A.  That  was  all,  and  my  acquaintance 
with  him  was  very  slight. 

Q.  You  were  summoned  upon  the  last  trial  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Tell  how  you  came  to  communicate  what  you  knew  of  Lawler  ? 
A.  I  told  it  to  Mr.  Bates. 

Q.  Who  is  he  ?  A.  A  hatter  in  Parliament-street,  who  told  it  to 
the  attorney,  I  believe,  who  summoned  me. 

Q.  Was  Bates  a  member  of  any  of  the  clubs  ?     A.  No. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  379 

Q.  How  came  you  to  know  that  Lawler  was  to  give  evidence  ? 
A.  I  did  not  know,  but  I  mentioned  that  I  knew  the  man,  and  what 
his  character  was. 

Q.  You  thought  Lawler  was  under  a  heavy  charge,  and  it  was 
cruel  in  you  to  oppress  him  ?  A.  I  did  not,  but  said,  I  was  sorry  for 
him.  I  told  Bates  again,  when  he  heard  that  Lawler  was  turned 
approver. 

Q.  You  wished  Lawler  well  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  then  when  Bates  told  you  that  Lawler  was  turned  informer, 
this  man  whom  you  wished  well,  was  such  a  man  as  was  not  to  be 
believed  ?  A.  Bates  sent  to  me,  and  I  went  to  him,  to  Castle-street, 
where  he  lives,  he  asked  me  how  long  I  knew  Lawler,  I  said,  for 
many  years.  Wliat  do  you  know  of  him  ? — I  told  him  all  I  knew 
about  him,  and  then  1  was  sent  for  by  Flood. 

Q.  Who  is  he  ?  A.  An  attorney.  And  it  is  by  that  I  am  obliged 
to  tell  what  I  have. 

Q.  Have  you  a  good  many  friends  that  you  are  anxious  for,  whom 
you  would  not  believe  upon  their  oaths  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Have  you  any  other  friend,  who  ought  not  to  be  believed  upon 
his  oath  ?     A.  I  believe  I  have. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — My  lords,  I  beg  leave  to  suggest  a  question. 
Whether  the  witness  ever  had  any  conversation  with  Lawlei*, 
respecting  his  principles  of  religion  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury,  what  it  was  ?  A.  At  his  first  coming  from 
England,  I  perceived  he  was  a  Deist,  and  denied  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  Son  of  God.  I  was  shocked  at  it.  He  said,  the  only  way  to 
become  reconciled  to  it,  was  to  read  upon  it.  I  said,  it  was  a  shocking 
piece  of  business.  But,  said  he,  I  will  go  further,  for  I  deny  the 
existence  of  a  God.  Where,  said  I,  do  you  think  your  soul  will  go 
after  you  die  ? — He  answered,  nowhere. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — How  long  did  you  continue  in  the  society  after 
this  ?     A.  Not  long.) 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant It  was  after  you  were  shocked  by  these 

irreligious  opinions,  that  you  were  anxious  about  him,  and  went  to 
Bates  ?  A.  His  belief  is  nothing  to  me :  in  his  own  breast  let  it 
lie. 

Q.  You  kept  him  company  after  this  ?  A.  He  came  to  my  place, 
but  I  never  went  to  him. 

William  Ebbs,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  M'Nallt. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?     A.  In  Cathedral-lane. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Lawler  ?  A.  About  twelve 
months. 

Q.  Where  did  he  reside  in  that  time  ?  A.  In  my  house  :  he  took 
a  lodging  from  me. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  Lawler's  having  anything  concealed  in  your 
house  of  a  remarkable  kind  ?  A.  Not  till  after  he  was  appre- 
hended. 

Q.  Had  you  occasion  to  make  a  search  in  his  apartment  ?  A.  On 
my  coming  home  to  my  breakfast,  my  wife  told  me,  she  saw  Mrs. 
Lawler  go  into  the  yard,  and  conceal  something  in  the  dirt-hole — I 
Avent  out  immediately,  and  found  two  leathern  bags,  containing  sixty 


380  TRIALS   OF 

musket  balls.  I  never  liad  a  bad  opinion  of  him,  till  I  saw  them,  and 
I  was  then  shocked. 

Q.  If  Lawler  swore  that  he  had  no  ammunition  or  balls,  would  he 
swear  true  ?     A.  No,  certainly  he  would  not. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  conversed  with  Lawler  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Deity  ?  A.  No,  I  had  very  little  communication  with  him,  though 
he  lodged  with  me. 

Q.  You  have  heard  of  his  character  ?     A.  I  have. 

Q.  From  what  you  know  of  the  general  character  of  Lawler,  is  he 
a  man  that  ought  to  be  believed  by  a  jury,  giving  evidence  in  a  court, 
of  justice  in  a  capital  case  ?  A.  I  would  not  believe  him  upon  his 
oath. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  a  member  of  those  societies  ?     A.  Never. 

Q.  Were  you  solicited  to  become  a  member  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  By  whom  ?     A.  By  Lawler. 

Q.  You  did  not  become  a  member  ?  A.  No,  I  did  not  choose  it : 
I  asked  him  the  intention  of  it ;  he  would  not  tell  me  till  I  was 
admitted.  He  applied  to  me  for  a  room  in  my  house,  for  a  society  to 
meet  in,  and  I  refused.  I  did  not  like  him  after  that.  His  wife  gave 
me  a  pistol  loaded  with  powder  and  ball. 

Q.  You  have  been  summoned  on  the  part  of  the  crown  and  by  the 
prisoner  ?     A.  I  have  five  or  six  times,  every  day. 

Q.  Who  summoned  you  to  attend  Weldon's  trial  ?  A.  The  crown, 
and  I  was  not  called  upon. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Attorney- General. 

Q.  How  long  did  Lawler  live  in  your  house  ?  A.  Twelve  months 
since  he  took  the  lodging  first. 

Q.  Wlien  did  he  go  to  live  with  you  last  ?  A.  Five  or  six  months, 
before  he  was  taken  up. 

Q.  During  that  time  he  followed  his  business  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  maintained  his  family  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  conducted  himself  well  ?     A.  For  a  time  he  did. 

Q.  He  was  a  member  of  those  societies?  A.  I  believe  so.  He 
told  me  so. 

Q.  He  was  an  active  member  ?     A.  I  believe  so,  by  his  asking  me. 

Q.  You  heard  his  testimony  this  day  and  you  were  asked,  if  he  had 
sworn,  that  he  had  not  balls  or  powder  in  his  room  he  Avould  have 
sworn  false.  But  if  he  did  not  so  swear,  but  was  asked,  had  he  ball 
cartridges  would  you  disbelieve  him  ?  A.  There  was  both  powder 
and  ball  in  the  pistol. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  of  rescuing  a  prisoner  from  the  watch- 
house  ?     A.  I  heard  of  it,  he  being  cut. 

Q.  Was  not  that  a  long  time  ago  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  if  he  swore,  that  a  long  time  ago  he  had  no  cartridges,  and 
a  long  time  after,  you  found  balls  in  the  house  or  the  room,  would 
you  think  you  ought  to  conclude,  he  had  perjured  himself?  I  need 
not  press  you  for  an  answer. 

Q.  At  the  time  he  was  arrested,  would  you,  if  asked,  say,  that  he 
was  not  a  man  to  be  believed  ?     A.  I  would  for  this  reason 

Q.  Give  me  your  reason  ?  A.  I  would.  He  told  my  wife  several 
things  from  which  she  said  he  was  a  dangerous  man.     He  never  kept 


THE    DEFENDERS.  381 

the  Sabbatli,  for  which  I  determined  to  get  him  out  of  my  house. 
When  I  came  down  clean  for  church,  I  used  to  see  him  working. 

Q.  Are  there  not  many  honest  men,  who  work  upon  Sunday  ?  A. 
There  may  :  but  I  was  asked  my  reason  for  not  believing  the  man, 
and  I  assign  that  as  one  among  others. 

Q.  At  that  time,  you  had  no  other  reason  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  Except  what  your  wife  told  you  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  ground  your  opinion  upon  what  you  heard  this  day  ?  A. 
Not  by  any  means. 

Q.  You  can  have  no  interest  in  this  business  ?  A.  No,  indeed,  for 
I  have  lost. 

Q,  By  this  man  ?     A.  No,  but  by  loss  of  time  here. 

Q.  Then  the  evidence  you  give  is  not  founded  upon  what  he  has 
said  this  day  ?     A.  No,  I  had  this  opinion  some  months  ago. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  work  upon  the  Sabbath  from  the  time  he  came 
to  lodge  with  you  ?     A.  Occasionally. 

Q.  How  long  had  he  remained  ?     A.  Seven,  or  eight  months. 

Q.  And  why  did  not  you  turn  him  out  ?  A.  I  could  not,  because 
he  paid  his  rent  regularly. 

Q.  Did  he  work  from  the  time  he  came  ?  A.  Occasionally  he  did, 
and  I  gave  him  Avarning  ;  he  took  the  lodgings  for  a  year. 

Q.  But  he  did  not  stay  a  year  ?  A.  He  did  not,  but  his  furniture 
is  there  still,  and  his  rooms  are  locked,  what  can  I  do  with  them  ? 

Q.  Did  you  speak  well  of  this  man,  within  this  month  ?  A.  As 
to  his  pa)-,  I  might,  and  keeping  good  hours. 

Q.  Did  you  not  speak  well  of  him  within  these  six  weeks  ?  A. 
Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Upon  what  occasion,  did  you  say  he  kept  his  hours  and  paid  his 
rent  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect.  There  were  many  called  to  my  house, 
but  I  w^as  not  at  home. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  tell  this,  that  he  was  not  to  be  believed  on 
his  oath  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect,  that  I  mentioned  it  to  any  one, 
except  sitting  in  court  the  former  day. 

Q.  Did  you  never  converse  respecting  him,  after  his  being  arrested? 
A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  did. 

Q.  And  yet  it  should  seem  very  natural  that  you  should  converse 
about  it.  When  did  you  first  hear  that  he  was  a  witness  ?  A.  I  did 
not  hear  it  till  after  Weldon's  trial. 

Q.  Did  you  never  hear  of  it  till  then  ?  A.  I  had  heard  of  it,  but 
was  not  certain  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  not  mention  it  then  ?  A.  No,  I  did  not  like  to  mention 
it,  because  I  thought  it  rather  disrespectful  to  myself  to  have  had  such 
a  man  in  my  house. 

Nicholas  Clare,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?     A.  No.  39,  Townsend-street. 
Q.  What  business  are  you  ?     A.  A  tailor. 
Q.  A  master,  or  journeyman  ?     A.  A  master. 
Q.  Do  you  know  William  Lawler  ?     A.  I  do. 
Q.  How  long  ?     A.  About  fourteen  months  ;  the  beginning  of  the 
winter  1794. 

Q.  Have    you  ever    had  any  conversation  with    him   about    his 


382  TRIALS    OF 

principles  of  religion  ?  A.  In  the  winter  of  1794, 1  belonged  to  the 
Telegraphic  Society ;  I  was  at  it  three  or  four  times,  and  there  was 
H  meeting  at  which  they  talked  of  the  Age  of  Reason  by  Faine,  some 
recommending  it,  others  approving  of  it.  Lawler  said,  I  go  further 
than  he  does,  for  I  deny  any  part  of  the  Trinity,  either  Father,  Son, 
or  Holy  Ghost. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  a  member  of  that  society  ?  A.  I  quit  it 
immediately  upon  seeing  there  was  a  fellow  of  this  opinion  in  it. 

Q.  On  your  oath  did  you  quit  it  upon  hearing  the  opinions  divulged 
by  Lawler  ?     A.  On  my  oath  I  did. 

Q.  From  the  knowledge  you  have  of  his  character  and  opinions, 
do  you  consider  him  a  man  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath,  gi vino- 
evidence  in  a  court  of  justice  ?     A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Give  your  reason.  A.  I  should  think  a  man,  who  denied  the 
three  persons  of  the  Trinity  ought  not  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Saurin. 

Q.  You  were  of  that  society  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  When  did  you  quit  it?     A.  October  or  November  1794. 

Q.  Lawler  is  a  much  younger  man,  than  you  ?  A.  I  do  not  know ; 
I  am  about  32  years  of  age,  and  I  do  not  know  his. 

Q.  Did  you  read  that  book  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  read  any  other  ?  A.  I  did,  and  intended  to  make  them 
a  present  of  a  Dictionary  of  arts  and  sciences,  I  thought  it  such  a 
society ;  but  when  I  found  he  promulged  such  opinions  and  being  a 
leading  man,  I  quit  it,  and  was  glad  I  did  not  give  my  books  to  them. 

Q.  Was  Burke  a  member  ?     A.  Thei-e  was  a  Mr.  Burke. 

Q.  Was  Galland  there  ?     A.  I  do  not  know  him. 

Q.  Had  you  any  other  acquaintance  with  Lawler  than  what  arose 
from  meeting  him  there  ?     A.  Never. 

Hei'e  the  evidence  closed  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner. 

George  Cowan,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Attorney-General,. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Lawler  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  How  long  ?     A.  Four  or  five  years. 

Q.  Is  he  a  man  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath  in  a  court  of  justice  ? 
A.  I  never  heard  of  an  opinion  to  the  contrary  till  this  trial. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  his  going  to  you  in  August  last  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  upon  what  occasion  was  that?  A.  He  came  to 
me  on  Monday  morning,  23d  or  24th  of  August,  and  seemed  to  be  a 
good  deal  agitated.  He  came  into  the  parlour ;  he  shut  the  door  of 
the  parlour,  and  then  opened  his  mind  to  me. 

Q.  What  intercourse  had  he  with  you  before  that  ?  A.  After  his 
coming  fi'om  England,  he  came  to  work  with  me ;  he  staid  but  a 
short  time,  when  he  went  to  Gallagher's,  South  Great  George's- 
street,  he  worked  in  Gallagher's  house  and  in  his  own  lodgings.  I  do 
not  believe  he  worked  for  any  one  else. 

Q.  What  passed  when  he  shut  the  door  ?  A.  He  told  me  that  he 
wished  to  open  his  mind  upon  a  matter  that  concerned  him  very 
much ;  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  against  the  Protestants  of  this 
country,  which  he  wished  to  make  known  for  my  advice,  what  to  do. 
(Here   Mr.   Cowan  asked,   was   Lawler  within   hearing,  and  being 


THE    DEFENDF.US.  383 

answered  in  the  negative,  he  proceeded.)  He  then  told  me  of  the 
societies  he  had  been  in.  I  do  not  recollect,  that  he  mentioned  the 
London  Corresponding  Society.  He  mentioned  the  others,  which  he 
mentioned  here.  I  asked  him,  was  he  sworn  a  Defender  ?  He  told 
me,  he  was  a  sworn  Defender,  and  there  told  me  almost  word  for 
word  as  he  has  done  upon  the  table  the  two  days  he  has  been 
examined.  Upon  my  word,  he  has  adhered  to  what  he  told  me  very 
closely  in  the  two  examinations. 

Q.  Was  there  any  one  present  ?     A.  There  was  not. 

Q.  Could  any  one  hear  ?     A.  There  could  not. 

Q.  Why  not  ?     A.  Because  there  was  no  person  present. 

Q.  Was  the  door  shut  ?     A.  It  was  ;  he  shut  it  himself. 

Q.  What  advice  did  he  ask — did  he  make  any  proposal  ?  A. 
When  he  heard  the  Protestants  were  to  be  put  to  death,  that  lay  very 
heavy  upon  his  mind,  he  was  a  Protestant  himself — in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  mischief,  if  possible. 

Q.  Did  he  speak  of  any  intention  he  had  with  regard  to  himself? 
A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Until  nov/  you  never  heard  anything  to  impeach  his  character  ? 
A.  Never. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Ebbs  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Had  yoi;  ever  any  conversation  with  Ebbs  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  When  ?     A.  Shortly  after  Lawler  was  apprehended. 

Q.  Upon  what  occasion  did  Ebbs  appear  to  know  that  Lawler  was 
charged  with  high  treason — or  that  he  was  a  witness  ?  A.  He 
appeared  to  me  to  know  that  he  was  charged  along  with  the  rest. 

Q.  How  did  Ebbs  express  himself  of  the  man  ?  A.  He  represented 
him  as  a  very  honest  industrious  creature ;  that  he  would  pay  his 
rent  the  very  day  it  became  due ;  that  he  and  his  wife  appeared 
extremely  decent.  I  went  up  to  the  room  to  look  for  him  before  he 
was  taken  up. 

Q.  Ebbs  did  not  impress  you  with  any  opinion  injurious  to  Lawler 
and  his  family  ?  A.  No,  but  the  reverse ;  he  told  me  he  was  an 
honest  industrious  man,  and  never  was  more  sm'prised  in  his  life. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Q.  Ebbs  said  he  never  was  more  surprised  than  when  Lawler  was 
taken  up  a  Defender  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  of  anything  bad,  which  he  knew  of  Lawler  ? 
A.  No. 

Q.  Did  he  then  teU  you  of  what  he  found  in  the  dirt-hole  ?    A.  No. 

Q.  If  you  had  a  lodger  of  whom  you  had  a  good  opinion,  and  that 
he  left  bags  of  balls  and  slugs  after  him,  would  you  not  be  surprised  ? 
A.  I  must  tell  you  further.  On  Friday  last,  I  saw  Ebbs ;  he 
came  to  me  in  our  hall  of  which  he  is  a  free-brother ;  he  said,  he 
wished  to  have  the  furniture  taken  away,  as  he  was  afraid  his  house 
would  be  puUed  down  by  the  mob.  Neither  at  that  time,  nor  until 
this  moment  did  I  hear  him  say  anything  against  the  man. 

Q.  The  day  of  the  convei'sation  in  the  hall,  was  the  day  you  re- 
turned yourself  a  common  council-man  upon  a  minority  of  votes  ? 
A.  It  was  the  day  of  the  election. 

Q.  That  election  has  been  set  aside  ?     A.  It  has. 


384  TRIALS   OF 

Q.  Would  you  not  change  an  opinion  of  a  lodger,  if  you  found 
ammunition  after  him  ?     A.  I  might. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  Ebbs  had  a  right  to  change  his  opinion  ? 
A.  No  doubt  but  he  might. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  he  was  right  ?     A.  Certainly. 
Q.  When  you  spoke  to  Ebbs,  did  you  say  anything  respecting 
religion  ?     A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Then  the  character  which  Ebbs  gave  of  Lawler  was  confined 
to  the  points  of  industry  and  payment  of  rent  ?  A.  It  Avas.  He 
never  mentioned  his  religion  to  me. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  a  lodging  is  as  necessary  to  a  rogue  as  to  an 
honest  man  ?     A.I  believe  so. 

Q.  And  therefore,  it  is  necessary  for  a  rogue  to  pay  his  rent,  to 
secure  his  lodging  ?     A.  It  is. 

Q.  A^^hat  Lawler  told  you  was  consistent  with  what  he  told  upon 
the  table  ?     A.  He  has  told  a  little  more  here. 
Q.  Nothing  less  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  If  a  man  laid  down  a  jilan,  which  he  intended  to  support  by 
evidence,  Avould  it  not  occur  to  him,  as  the  first  thing  to  be  consistent  ? 
A.  It  might. 

Q.  Did  you  never  hear  of  men  being  hanged  upon  the  consistent 
evidence  of  a  conspiracy  to  convict  them,  for  the  pvirpose  of  procuring 
rewards  ?     A.  I  never  did  hear  of  it. 

Q.  If  you  were  of  that  malicious  disposition,  would  you  not  com- 
pose a  train  of  lies  to  support  your  story  ?  A.  I  do  not  think  it  easy 
to  support  a  train  of  lies. 

Q.  But  if  a  man  gave  information  of  certain  facts  before  a  magis- 
trate, though  that  were  false,  would  he  not  endeavour  to  support  it 
before  a  jury?     A.  He  ought  to  do  it,  if  they  were  truths. 

Q.  When  a  man  swears  to  a  lie  in  one  place,  it  is  his  object  to 
make  it  appear  as  like  it  in  another  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  that  a  man,  Avho  would  swear  to  one  lie  in 
one  place,  would  swear  to  another  in  another  place  ?  A.  I  should 
suppose  so. 

Q.  If  he  told  a  lie  before  the  magistrate,  would  he  not  tell  the 
same  lie  here  ?     A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  If  he  contradicted  his  informations,  would  he  not  be  liable  to 
an  indictment  for  perjury  ?     A.  No  doubt  of  it. 

Q.  If  you  had  a  good  opinion  of  the  consistency  of  LaAvler,  why 
did  you  ask,  was  he  Avithin  hearing  ?  A.  I'll  tell  you  my  reason, 
because  I  should  be  happy  to  tell  everything  Avith  respect  to  the 
prisoner,  as  to  LaAvler.  Lawler's  wife  came  to  me  and  told  me,  that 
Ebbs  wanted  his  rent — this  was  after  LaAvler  was  apprehended. 
I  desired  Mi-s.  LaAvler  to  send  Ebbs  to  me,  and  I  Avould  satisfy  him. 
The  reason  I  did  this  was,  that  LaAvler  should  not  understand,  that 
anything  was  done  for  him  in  consequence  of  any  prosecution.  I 
gave  money  to  pay  Ebbs  the  rent,  and  Ebbs  was  paid  the  rent,  and 
he  continued  the  furniture  ever  since. 

Q.  Then  thei-e  have  been  pecuniary  services  for  Lawler's  family  ? 
A.  So  far  as  that. 

Q.  HoAv  are  you  to  be  re-imbursed?  A.  I  could  not  think  of 
letting  him  Avant  after  the  infoi'mation  he  gave  me. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  385 

Q.  It  was  from  motives  of  charity  in  your  own  hmnane  breast,  that 
you  advanced  the  money  ?     A.  I  did  not  say  any  such  thing. 

Q.  Do  you  expect  to  be  re-imbursed  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  expect  Lawler  will  ?     A.  I  do  not  know  but  he  will. 

Q.  By  what  means  ?     A.  By  his  livelihood. 

Q.  What !  do  you  expect  that  he  will  be  let  to  live  in  the  city  of 
Dublin  ?     A.  I  do  not  see  what  is  to  hinder  him. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  see  as  far  as  I  do.  Lawler  has  other  expec- 
tations ?  A.  I  believe  not,  because  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Kemmis, 
he  told  me,  he  never  expected  anything. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  he  is  acting  in  expectation  of  his  Majesty's 
pai'don  ?     A.  For  what. 

Q.  For  his  oifeuces  ?     A.  I  do  not  know  anything  of  them. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  he  expects  a  pardon  ?     A.  I  do  not  believe  it. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again  ;  if  he  be  guilty  of  the  crimes,  that  he  says  he 
is,  do  you  not  believe  that  he  expects  a  pardon  ? — Do  you  not  believe 
he  is  guilty  ?  A.  I  believe  he  is,  and  I  tell  you  why.  When  I  went 
to  England,  in  1792,  I  got  an  order  to  pay  him  a  sum  of  money — 
£10.  I  went  to  look  for  him,  and  found  he  had  changed  his  name  ; 
he  came  to  me  in  the  evening  after,  and  told  me  he  had  enlisted, 
which  was  the  cause  of  changing  his  name ;  and  I  went  afterwards 
to  the  same  place,  and  the  woman  told  me,  there  had  been  a  party  of 
soldiei's  looking  for  him. 

Q.  You  had  £  1 0  to  advance  him  ?     A.I  had. 

Q.  This  was  in  London  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  You  knew  him  there  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  By  virtue  of  your  oath  do  you  know  what  brought  him  back  ? 
A.  No. 

Q.  You  never  encouraged  him  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  employed  him  upon  his  return  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  He  went  to  you  as  his  best  friend  ?  A.  He  was  glad  to  work 
with  me,  as  I  have  some  of  the  best  workmen  from  England. 

Q.  But  he  staid  a  short  time  ?     A.  Gallagher  inveigled  him  from  me. 

Q.  What  was  the  £10?  A.  George  Drury  was  guardian  of  this 
boy  and  another,  and  was  owner  of  certain  rents.  There  was  £50 
a-piece  coming  to  the  boys  ;  and  £40  had  been  paid  to  tliis  man,  and 
£10  remained  due.  Drury  requested  I  would  pay  him  in  London, 
which  I  did. 

Q.  If  Lawler  or  any  other  person  had  told  you  he  did  not  believe  in 
a  God,  and  afterwai-ds  told  you  he  had  been  guilty  of  the  offences  he 
mentioned  here,  would  you  consider  him  to  be  a  man  to  be  believed 
in  a  court  of  justice?  A.  I  never  heard  anything  against  him  until 
this  trial. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  to  be  answer  to  my  question'?  Why  do 
you  evade  it  ?     A.  What  is  it  ? 

Q.  If  a  man  told  you  he  disbelieved  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity, 
and  confessed  the  crimes  this  man  has  told,  would  you  take  him  to  be 
a  man  who  ought  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath  ?  A.  I  must_  confess 
it  would  shake  my  credit  of  him.  Upon  getting  the  information  I 
did  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  myself,  my  country,  and  my  king,  to  let 
government  be  acquainted  Avith  it. 

Evidence  closed. 

2  c 


386  TRIALS  OF 

Mr.  Baron  George Mr.  M'Nally  as  you  are  the  single  counsel 

for  the  prisoner,  you  are  at  liberty  to  observe  upon  the  evidence  if 
you  choose,  in  addition  to  what  you  have  already  argued. 

Mr.  M'Nally My  lords,  I  feel  myself  much  indebted  to  your' 

lordships.     I  will  just  make  one  observation,  which  I  omitted  before.; 
In  all  the  evidence  against  the  prisoner,  with  respect  to  conversations  j 
between  him  and  Lawler,  they  are  always  stated  without  the  inter-  i 
vention  of  a  third  person — all  the  conversation  in  Blackhorse-lane  j 
was  private — without  the  privity  of  a  third  person  who  could  disprove , 
the  statement.     This  is  the  only  remark  I  wish  to  make,  as  I  will  not 
trouble  the  gentlemen  of  the  jury  further,  although  I  well  know  the 
ability  of  the  gentleman  who  is  to  reply  to  me.     But  I  have  seen  the 
jury  take  notes  of  the  evidence  upon  which  they  will  decide,  not  upon 
the  arguments  of  counsel.     The  jury  are  the  judges  of  the  life  and 
death  of  this  unfortunate  prisoner — charged  with  an  offence  of  pro- 
digious weight. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General  spoke  to  evidence  on  the  pai't  of  the 
crown.  He  said,  that  the  marked  attention  of  the  jury,  during  the 
progress  of  the  trial,  and  the  laborious  and  anxious  situation  in  which 
their  lordships  had  been  placed,  during  the  course  of  the  longest  ses- 
sion of  Oyer  and  Terminer  that  had  been  remembered  in  Ireland, 
would  render  him  unjustifiable,  were  he  not  to  condense  his  observa- 
tion within  as  narrow  a  compass  as  possible.  He  said,  that  it  would 
be  his  duty  to  impress  two  points  upon  the  minds  of  the  jury.  1st, 
that  the  existence  of  a  treason,  such  as  was  charged  in  the  indictment, 
had  been  established  beyond  controversy.  2dly,  that  there  was 
sufficient  evidence  to  convince  every  reasonable  man  that  the  crime 
was  brought  home  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  As  to  the  first  point, 
it  was  a  lamentable  and  notorious  truth,  which  the  evidence  con- 
firmed, not  only  by  parol  proof,  but  by  written  documents,  found  upon 
the  associates  of  the  prisoner,  and  not  attempted  to  be  controverted, 
that  this  rank  and  foul  treason  has  not  only  existed,  but  had  burst 
forth  into  acts  of  most  alarming  outrage  through  many  parts  of 
the  kingdom;  and  upon  the  present  occasion,  we  trace  it  under  its 
various  and  mysterious  modifications  to  have  had  the  same  actuating 
contagious  principle  which  has  diffused  itself  from  France  through 
those  seminaries  of  political  mischief  and  disease,  which,  under  the 
appellation  of  societies,  clubs,  committees,  and  defenders,  urged  on  by 
French  missionaries,  have  infected  and  endangered  both  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland. 

As  to  the  rules  of  law,  matured  as  they  are  by  a  series  of  judicial 
determinations  in  the  various  cases  that  have  been  adjudged  upon 
the  subject  of  treason,  and  the  stat.  25  Ed.  III.  what  you,  gentle- 
men, have  heard  from  my  learned  friend  (the  Attorney- General) 
and  what  you  will  hear  from  the  wisdom  and  authority  of  the  Court, 
render  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  detain  you  upon  that  part  of  the  case. 
The  meeting,  associating,  consulting,  and  confederating  with  a  body 
of  men,  leagued  and  united  under  the  obligation  of  a  deliberate  oath, 
to  be  true  to  the  French  Convention,  and  to  assist  the  forces  of  the 
French  (at  open  war  with  the  state)  with  an  armed  confederacy,  in 
case  tlx'y  should  invade  the  kingdom  ;  llio  enlisting  of  men  into  the 
conspiracy,  and  the  nightly  arrangements  for  numbering  and  giving 


THE    DEFENDEHS.  387 

officers  and  discipline  to  tlie  body,  the  subscribing  money  to  purchase 
ammunition,  the  phindering  the  peaceable  inhabitants  of  the  country 
of  their  arms,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  giving  assistance  to  the 
invaders,  amount  in  themselves  to  a  direct  invitation,  and  encourage- 
ment to  the  enemy  to  invade  these,  his  Majesty's  realms ;  and  are 
plain  overt  acts  of  the  treason  in  the  two  counts  of  the  indictment, 
namely,  the  compassing  of  the  King's  death  and  the  adhering  to  his 
enemies.  Now  in  the  body  of  evidence  brought  to  substantiate  the 
charge,  there  is  one  prominent  feature,  which  arises  out  of  the  oath 
and  catechism,  which  I  consider  together,  as  if  they  were  one  instru- 
ment, each  part  throwing  light  on  the  other,  and  to  which  I  call  the 
particular  attention  of  the  jury  ;  as  from  the  internal  and  immutable 
evidence  arising  from  that  instrument,  from  the  manner  in  which  it 
appears  to  combine  the  principles  of  the  confederacy,  from  the 
authenticity  which  it  has  received,  not  only  from  the  circumstantial 
evidence,  by  which  it  was  identified,  but  by  which  it  was  traced  to 
the  fob  of  that  associated  Defender,  on  Avhom  it  was  found,  by  aid  of 
the  information  of  the  principal  witness,  Lawler.  It  constitutes  a 
most  important  branch  of  the  case,  not  only  as  an  irrefragable  proof 
of  the  treason  which  teems  through  every  line  of  it,  but  also  that 
from  the  previous  description  given  by  Lawler  of  its  contents,  and  of 
the  person  upon  whom  it  was  found,  there  is  the  strongest  degree  of 
corroborating  credit  given  to  the  whole  testimony  of  that  witness. 

Of  the  instructions,  and  signals,  which  accompanied  that  initiating, 
that  ceremony  of  swearing,  you  have  had  a  minute  description,  and 
Lawler  has  proved  that  the  pi'isoner  was  well  acquainted  with  those 
mysterious  signals.  He  has  also  told  you,  that  the  first  meeting  of 
Defenders,  at  which  he  saw  the  prisoner,  was  at  Stoneybatter,  and 
that  he,  the  prisoner,  then  appeared  to  him  to  be  somewhat  in  liquoi*. 
And  here  in  conformity  to  those  principles  of  moderation,  and  upright 
candour  which  have  distinguished  the  conductor  of  the  present  pro- 
secutions, I  am  free  to  acknowledge,  that  the  prisonei''s  being  some- 
what in  liquor,  is  a  part  of  the  evidence  from  which  I  ought  not  to 
draw  your  attention,  and  from  his  manner  of  saying  it.  The  witness 
in  mentioning  that  fact,  shews  that  his  mind  is  divested  of  any  male- 
volence, towards  the  prisoner.  I  will  say,  however,  that  if  inebriety 
was  to  be  an  excuse  for  outrage,  there  would  be  99  atrocious  criminals 
in  100  of  the  lower  order  of  the  people  of  Ireland,  Avho  in  truth, 
might  plead  it  in  bar  of  their  being  convicted.  That  intoxicating 
drug  which  is  so  unhappily  and  universally  made  use  of  in  this  country, 
is  the  constant  preparatory  to  everything  that  is  desperate,  amongst 
those,  who  may  not  be  sufficiently  susceptible  of  being  inflamed  by 
the  wi'itings  of  the  illustrious  Thomas  Paine,  whose  doctrines  an 
ingenious  man  has  aptly  called,  the  whiskey  of  infidelity  and  treason. 
At  that  meeting  at  Stoneybatter,  which  I  have  mentioned.  Hart,  who 
is  proved  to  have  been  invested  with  the  authority  of  a  committee- 
man, in  the  presence  of  the  whole  company,  expostulated  with  a 
person  who  was  just  introduced  and  appeared  reluctant  to  be  sworn, 
and  who  desired  to  know,  what  was  the  object  of  the  engagement,  to 
which  Hart  replied,  in  a  loud  voice:  "  The  object  is  to  take  arms 
from  those  that  have  them,  that  we  may  assist  the  French  when  they 
land."     And   at   the  same  meeting,   Hart  commanded  all  present,  to 


388  TRIALS    OF 

lay  their  hands  upon  the  table,  and  to  engage  on  the  virtue  of  their 
Defender  oath  to  attend  on  a  future  evening,  that  they  might  proceed 
to  plunder  a  house  of  arms. 

Upon  a  subsequent  interview  between  the  witness  and  the  prisoner ; 
he,  the  prisoner,  relates  the  circumstances  of  a  robbery,  that  was 
committed  by  him,  accompanied  by  Hart  and  others,  pursuant  to 
their  engagements  ;  and  the  manner  of  breaking  the  liouse,  the  taking 
of  arms  of  a  particular  description,  the  ringing  of  a  bell,  during  the 
robbery,  by  some  person  within,  and  the  exact  geographical  situation 
of  the  house,  are  all  related  by  the  witness,  from  the  account  the 
prisoner  gave  him.  And  the  owner  of  the  house  that  was  robbed, 
has  been  examined,  and  has  confirmed  that  account  in  most  of  the 
essential  points  :  as  to  the  arms  taken,  the  bell  ringing,  the  site  of 
the  house,  and  the  particular  time  and  manner  of  the  robbery,  so  as 
to  leave  no  room  to  doubt  of  the  prisoner  being  involved  in  the 
transaction. 

The  witness,  Lawler,  has  undergone  the  most  sifting  scrutiny  of 
examination  for  two  days,  in  the  course  of  this,  and  a  former  trial. 
That  he  was  to  have  been  a  principal  witness,  has  been  publicly 
known,  and  the  course  of  the  cross-examination,  and  the  evidence 
adduced  by  the  prisoner,  shew  to  demonstration,  that  the  prisoner's 
counsel  have  been  thoroughly  aware  and  instructed  of  the  evidence 
for  the  crown,  branched  out  as  it  has  been  into  such  a  variety  of  place, 
time  and  circumstance.  It  is  next  to  an  impossibility,  that  any  fabri- 
cated tale  of  transactions  so  recent,  involving  so  many  persons,  and 
the  series  of  so  many  facts  could  have  escaped  detection,  or  that  any- 
thing but  consistent  truth  could  have  supported  itself,  without  a 
contradiction,  either  from  the  witness  himself,  or  from  some  other 
quarter.  But  nothing  of  that  kind  has  been  attempted  or  argued. 
It  has  been  indeed  attempted,  to  shew  however,  that  the  witness  is 
divested  of  all  sense  of  religion ;  that  he  has  been  involved  in  many 
crimes,  and  that  as  he  is  an  accomplice  in  the  crime,  which  he  now 
proves  against  another,  he  deserves  no  credit  himself.  Of  the  three 
witnesses,  who  have  been  called  by  the  prisoner,  the  two  first,  after 
swearing  to  the  irreligious  sentiments  of  the  witness,  have  acknow- 
ledged that  they  themselves  continued  long  in  the  same  political 
societies  Avith  the  witness,  who  had  come  recommended  from  the 
London  Corresponding  Society,  a  philanthropic  admirer  of  that  same 
Thomas  Paine,  whose  works  were  their  principal  study,  and  you, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  ai'e  the  best  judges  which  of  tlae  witnesses 
have  been  the  most  pious  of  his  disciples.  But  this,  you  cannot 
forget,  that  after  the  time  when  Lawler  was  supposed  to  be  arrested, 
those  two  witnesses  enquired  for  him,  with  the  utmost  solicitude  of 
regard  and  friendship  for  their  old  associate.  But,  Lawler  afterwards 
becaiiie  a  penitent  and  witness  for  the  crown  !  Whilst  he  was  an 
imreclaimed  criminal,  he  was  their  friend ;  but  when,  by  his  discovery, 
he  made  atonement,  lie  is  infamous  in  their  eyes.  Et  liinc  illce 
lachrymce.  Wliilst  lie  was  a  Defender,  lie  was  virtuous  and  a  man  of 
truth  ;  but  now  he  has  revolted  from  them,  and  is  an  infidel.  As  for 
the  third  witness  for  the  prisoner,  it  has  been  proved,  that  under  the 
same  inij)ression  as  tlie  other  two,  when  first  resorted  to,  and  asked 
for  the  witness's  character,  he  then  represented  him,  as  a  most  honest 


THE    DEFENDERS.  389 

and  industrious  creature.     This  appears,  from  the  evidence  of  Mr. 

Cowan,  who  was  called  to  the  credit  of  the  witness,  Lawler,  after  his 

credit  had  been  thus  impeached ;  for  it  is  remarkable,  that  this  is  the 

only  defence  that  has  been  attempted.     Gentlemen,  you  have  all  heard 

Mr.  Cowan,  and  you  know  him,   and  if  anything  could  raise  a  man 

of  his  known  worth  in  estimation  and  merit  amongst  his  countrymen, 

it  would  be  his  conduct  on  the  present  occasion.     Mr.  Cowan  has  told 

you  of  the   sedulous   industry  of  Lawler,   who  worked  for  him  at  his 

trade.     He  has  told  you  of  the  voluntary  disclosure  made  by  him,  at 

a  time  when  there  was  not  a  shadow  of  accusation  against  him.     He 

has  mentioned  to  you  his  motives  of  conscientious  remorse,  and  his 

horror  of  intended  massacre,  and  he  says,  that  he  has  been  uniform 

and  consistent  from  the  first  moment  of  his  discovery ;  and  as  an 

instance  of   his  present  sentiments  of  Lawler,   he  has  said  that  he 

(Cowan)  would  employ  him  hereafter  at  his  trade. 

But  the  learned  counsel  then  interi-ogated  in  a  tone  of  some  signi- 
ficance. "  What,  sir,  do  you  think  that  Lawler  will  be  let  to  live  in 
Dublin,"  "  If  so,"  says  the  counsel,  "  I  think  I  can  see  further  than 
you  do."  Grood  God  !  can  any  advocate  be  so  hai'dy  as  to  insinuate 
that  a  witness  who  comes  forward  in  aid  of  public  justice,  must  do  it 
at  the  I'isk  of  his  life  ?  Are  we  come  to  this  ?  Is  terror  to  be  huna- 
out  to  prevent  the  investigation  ot  truth  i  And  will  any  man  dare, 
in  the  face  of  this  tribunal,  to  i-aise  such  a  suggestion? 

Here  the  court  observed,  that  IMr.  M'Nally  was  not  in  court, 
which  they  regretted,  for  though  the  expressions  made  use  of  by  him 
had  not  excited  the  same  ideas  in  their  minds  as  in  that  of  the  Solicitor, 
yet  from  the  sense  that  might  be  put  on  them,  it  was  necessary  the 
words  should  be  explained. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General — I  did  not  perceive  that  the  learned 
gentleman  had  gone  out  since  I  begun.  I  ask  pardon  for  mentioning, 
in  his  absence,  what  I  had  rather  he  was  present  to  explain.* 

It  has  been  argued,  that  as  this  case  must  turn  upon  the  evidence  of 
the  single  witness,  who  is  an  accomplice  in  the  crimes  of  which  he 
accuses  others,  that  no  jury  should  credit  him,  and  that  no  court 
should  sanction  a  conviction  upon  his  evidence.  I  am  well  aware  that 
such  an  opinion  was  formerly  contended  for,  and  that  even  the  com- 
petence of  such  a  witness  has  been  strenuously  argued  against.  But 
since  the  case  of  Charnock,f  who  was  tried  soon  after  the  Revolution, 
before  as  great  judges  as  ever  sat  in  Westminster- Hall,  no  attempt  has 
been  made  to  support  such  an  opinion,  and  capital  convictions  upon 
the  evidence  of  a  single  accomplice  have,  in  some  late  instances,  been 

Mr.  M'Nally  had  left  the  court  for  the  purpose  of  taking  some  refreshment, 
and  upon  his  return  being  informed  of  what  had  passed,  explained,  and  said,  his 
meaning  was  that  Lawler  would  be  so  covered  with  infamy  that  no'person  in  Dublin 
would  employ  him,  and  therefore  he  must  seek  his  bread  elsewhere.  This  expla- 
nation was  deemed  amply  sufficient  by  the  court,  and  the  matter  terminated  to  the 
satisfaction  of  all  parties. 

t  Charnock  and  others  were  indicted  for  conspiracy  to  assassinate  Wm.  III., 
and  the  chief  witness  against  them  was  Captain  Porter,  who  was  himself  implicated 
in  the  plot.  He  was  the  prototype  in  turpitude  of  Captain  Armstrong  of  a  later 
period.  Charnock  insisted  on  his  incompetency,  but  the  court  ruled  that  he  was 
a  competent  witness.  Burnet  seeks  to  implicate  James  II.  in  the  design.  See 
12th  Howell  St.  Tr.  1378  ;  and  also  see  Burnet,  2  vol.  p.  171. 


390  TRIALS   OF 

sanctioned  by  all  the  judges  of  England  as  reported  by  Leach.*  If  it 
were  not  so,  many  dark  and  dangerous  crimes  would  go  unpunished ; 
for  the  perpetrators  of  dark  crimes  are  seldom  known  by  any  but  the 
accomplices  ;  and  more  so  in  this  country  than  any  other,  where  noc- 
turnal outrage  has  become  familiar,  and  where  convictions  in  most 
instances  could  never  be  had  through  any  other  means  than  the  dis- 
covery of  accomplices.  And  although  a  dictum  to  the  contrary  of 
the  opinion  which  I  maintain  may  have  derived  new  force  by  what 
has  lately  fallen  from  an  authority  which  every  man  must  venerate, 
I  will  take  the  freedom  to  say,  that  upon  principles  as  sound  and  as 
just  as  ever  have  been  adopted  in  the  law  of  evidence,  and  the  inves- 
tigation of  truth,  that  a  jury  maybe  well  warranted  to  find  a  vei'dict, 
and  judges  well  warranted  to  sanction  a  conviction,  even  upon  the 
evidence  of  a  single  accomplice. 

But  this  is  not  a  case  resting  upon  the  evidence  of  a  single  accom- 
plice ;  for  exclusive  of  the  intrinsic  weight,  and  consistency  of  his 
evidence,  here  is  a  number  of  collateral,  corroborative  facts,  arising 
from  the  testimony  of  others,  as  to  the  finding  the  oath  in  the  fob  of 
Kennedy,  where  Lawler  had  previously  told  it  to  be — the  uniform 
relation  of  the  facts  to  James  and  Cowan,  and  the  detail  of  the  robbery 
of  Finegan's  house  of  the  arms. 

Besides,  that  no  general  and  unqualified  remark  can  attach  upon  the 
credibility  of  all  accomplices.  There  are  various  gradations  and  shades 
of  criminality  that  might  tend  to  discredit,  but  neither  the  laws  of 
God  or  man  preclude  the  hope  of  exculpation  by  repentance,  towards 
which  a  fair,  voluntary,  and  explicit  disclosure  of  his  guilt  is  the  first 
step  to  gain  credit  and  reception  to  the  penitent.  And  see  how  much 
more  strongly  this  argument  will  hold  in  cases  of  treason  than  any 
other.  It  is  of  the  peculiar  essence  of  that  crime  that  the  intention 
of  the  mind,  manifested  by  ovei't  acts,  indicative  of  the  intention,  shall 
be  a  completion  of  the  guilt.  But  evil  "  into  the  mind  of  man  may 
come  and  go."  And  no  one  of  sound  sense  will  say  that  the  man 
whose  deluded  mind  had  been  betrayed  into  such  overt  acts,  Avho  took 
an  early  opportunity  to  revolt  from  his  associates  before  they  accom- 
plished their  horrid  purpose,  and  from  a  principle  of  remorse  disclosed 
and  prevented  the  completion  of  the  mischief,  shall,  in  point  of  moral 
turpitude,  be  deemed  as  infamous  as  the  man  who  comes  Avith  his 
bloody  hands  to  relate  the  murder  which  he  had  assisted  others  to 
commit. 

There  is  one  other  striking  feature  of  this  case,  that  in  my  opinion, 
goes  strongly  to  set  up  the  credit  of  Lawler,  and  to  attach  criminality 
upon  the  prisoner  and  his  associates.  For  it  appears  that  the  instruc- 
tions from  whence  the  cross-examination  has  been  furnished  could  not 
have  been  derived  from  any  other  source  but  a  direct  and  intimate 
privity  and  participation  in  all  that  criminality  which  is  imputed  to 
the  witness.  Thus  we  have  it  from  the  cross-examination,  that 
"  Paine's  Age  of  Reason "  was  the  vade  mecum  of  the  societies  ;  that 

*  The  case  referred  to  is  the  King  v.  Atwood  and  Robbins  ;  1  Leach  Crown 
Cases,  464.  They  were  found  guilty  on  the  testimony  of  an  accomplice,  and 
Judge  Buller  took  the  opinion  of  the  twelve  judges  who  hold  the  conviction  right. 
And  see  King  v.  Crowder,  I  Leach  478 ;  Jordaine  v.  Lashbrooke,  7  Term  R. 
609;  King  v.  Jones,  2  Camp.  R.  132. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  391 

the  witness  was  the  pei'son  best  armed  at  the  watch-house  and  at 
Stoneybatter.  From  the  cross-examination  you  have  it  that  the  witness 
was  employed  by  Le  Blanc,  the  Frenchman,  who  has  appeared  a  prin- 
cipal actor  amongst  the  Defendei's,  as  well  as  leader  in  a  conspiracy 
to  put  Cockayne  out  of  the  way  before  Jackson's  trial.  Who  is  it 
that  lias  heard  Avhat  this  cross-examination  has  brought  out  that  does 
not  believe  the  men  in  the  dock  Avere  privy  to  the  whole,  and  that 
does  not  stand  appalled  at  the  horrid  work  that  midnight  treason  has 
been  hatching  ?  And  who  is^  it  that  has  heard  the  learned  counsel 
ask  such  questions  from  the  secret  cabinet  of  his  instructions,  that  is 
not  convinced  that  privity  and  participation  have  furnished  those 
examinations,  and  linked  traitors  together  through  every  stage  from 
that  society  in  which  Lawler's  mind  was  first  corrupted  down  to  the 
lowest  Defender,  that  has  been  the  desperate  instrument  to  carry  into 
effect  the  most  alarming  system  of  assassination,  treason,  and  rebellion. 

These,  gentlemen,  are  circumstances,  which,  from  their  nature, 
could  never  have  been  revealed  by  any  man  that  had  not  shared  in 
their  criminality ;  and  being  brought  out  by  the  prisoner,  by  their 
cohision,  they  throw  a  light  upon  the  whole,  and  flash  conviction  upon 
the  mind  of  every  man  that  heard  them. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  give  me  leave  to  congratulate  you  and  the 
country  in  which  we  live,  however  painful  this  enquiry  has  been,  that 
after  the  irrefragable  proof  which  we  now  have  of  the  co-operation  of 
French  missionaries  with  the  promoting  of  treason  and  sedition  at 
horae,  there  yet  remains  that  fair  and  impartial  appeal  to  justice,  which 
the  prisoner,  or  those  who  have  involved  him,  could  not  find  in  any 
part  of  the  woi'ld  that  is  not  blessed  by  the  British  constitution — that 
constitution  which  they  have  endeavoured  to  destroy.  In  order  to 
rescue  the  deluded  from  their  guilt,  by  timely  example — in  order  to 
save  us  from  the  degrading  supplication  to  military  justice. 

In  order  to  save  us  from  these  horrid  butcheries,  w'hich  have 
deluged  so  great  a  proportion  of  Europe  in  blood,  I  trust  that  by  a 
conscientious  discharge  of  your  duty,  you  will  give  your  country 
cause  to  look  up  with  veneration  to  the  trial  by  jury. 

The  jury  retired  for  one  hour,  and  bi'ought  in  a  verdict — Not 
Guilty. 

Wednesday,  December  30. 

Clayton  and  Cooke  were  brought  up  to  be  tried,  when  Mr.  Attor- 
ney-General moved  to  postpone  their  trials  ;  it  had  appeared  upon 
the  former  trials,  said  he,  that  there  are  persons  wicked  enough  to 
take  away  the  lives  of  witnesses.  One  of  the  witnesses  who  w  as  to 
prosecute  those  prisoners  does  not  attend,  and  Mi\  Cowan,  another 
witness,  been  attacked  with  the  gout  in  his  stomach,  and  cannot 
attend. 

Mr.  M'Nally I  have  a  doubt  how  far  the  court  has  any  dis- 
cretion under  the  habeas  corpus  act,  to  postpone  these  trials. 

Mr.    Attorney-General I   admit,  that  if  no  indictment  be 

found  the  fii-st  session,  after  committal,  the  prisoner  must  be  dis- 
charged ;  and  if  one  be  found,  and  he  is  not  tried  the  second  session, 
he  is  to  be  discharged.  But  the  act  is  silent  as  to  the  right  of 
being  tried.     Then,  my  lords,  I  leave  it  to  your  discretion.     Upon 


392  TRIALS   OF 

the  habeas  corpus  act,   the  right  of  trial   remains  as  before.     The 
j)risoner  may  be  discharged,  but  they  are  still  liable  to  be  tried. 

Court. — If  the  pi-isoners  presented  petitions  upon  the  first  day  of 
the  session  after  their  committal,  are  not  tried  on  the  second  commis- 
sion, they  are  entitled  to  be  discharged. 

Mr.  Attorney-General,  then  addressed  the  court,  and  the  by- 
standers, in  order  to  have  it  fully  understood  by  the  prisoners  and  the 
public,  that  though  the  persons  now  in  custody  should  be  discharged 
from  imprisonment,  yet  the  prosecution  was  by  no  means  given  up, 
but  would  on  the  contrary  remain  in  full  vigour  and  be  carried  on  as 
soon  as  the  King's  witnesses  should  be  forthcoming.  He  then 
descanted  on  the  causes  of  those  enormities  which  had  brought  the 
peace  of  the  city  and  country,  the  property  and  lives  of  the  public 
into  the  very  imminent  danger  in  which  they  had  so  lately  been,  and 
from  which  he  hoped  that  the  proceedings  of  this  commission  would 
secure  them.  Those  evils  he  atti'ibuted  to  the  veiy  relaxed  state  of 
morality — the  extreme  and  culpable  inattention  of  masters  and  fathers 
of  families  to  the  manners  and  conduct  of  their  children,  and  to  tlie 
growing  and  alarming  prevalence  of  iiTcligion  and  infidelity,  which 
wherever  they  became  general,  destroy  pviblic  happiness  and  public 
safety,  and  loosen  all  the  bonds  which  hold  society  together.  As  one 
instance  of  culpable  neglect  in  the  public  to  the  morals  of  the  rising 
generation,  he  mentioned  the  conduct  of  those  many  masters  who  ai'e 
become  too  proud  to  let  their  apprentices  sleep  in  their  houses.  It 
was  a  known  fact,  he  said,  that  apprentices  now  were  generally  sent 
to  lodge  in  other  houses  than  their  masters,  and  in  that  profession 
with  which  he  was  most  nearly  connected,  that  of  an  attorney,  there 
were  only  two  men  in  the  city  of  Dublin  who  kept  their  apprentices 
in  their  own  houses.  The  natural  consequence  of  this  was,  that  boys 
at  a  very  early  age  became  fit  subjects  of  those  wicked  men  to  work 
on,  whose  object  was  to  remove  every  religious  and  moral  principle 
from  the  mind  in  order  to  make  way  for  those  abominable  docti'iues 
which  they  wished  to  inculcate.  He  was  not  yet  become  a  very  old 
man,  and  yet  he  was  old  enough  to  remember  a  time  when  fathers  and 
masters  kept  their  children  and  apprentices  at  home,  and  taught  them 
to  pass  their  vacant  evenings  in  some  innocent  amusement — ^now  the 
evenings  and  Sabbath  were  devoted  to  clubs  and  societies,  where  folly 
was  taught  to  hatch  ti^eason,  and  imbecility  to  plot  massacre.  To 
prevent  effectually  these  di-eadful  crimes,  which  it  was  now  fully 
proved  had  been  attempted,  the  public  must  exert  their  own  powers  ; 
the  master  and  the  father  must  again  become  the  guardian  of  his 
servant  and  his  child's  innocence  ;  and  in  order  effectually  to  preserve 
that  innocence,  the  best  way  would  be  found  to  guard  them  against 
the  temptations  and  the  opportunities  of  vice.  Much  pains  had  been 
taken,  he  said,  to  misrepresent  to  the  public  what  passed  in  that  place 
— it  had  been  attempted  to  throw  such  a  degree  of  odium  on  the 
King's  witnesses,  as  should  induce  the  public  to  believe  their  testi- 
mony insufficient  to  convict  men  charged  with  secret  and  most 
enormous  crimes.  It  was  true,  indeed,  that  the  Avitness  on  a  late 
prosecution  had  been  proved  to  be  a  man  who  had  been  guilty  of  very 
atrocious  offences,  but  by  whom  can  men  that  have  committed  crimes 
in  secrecy  ever  be  convicted  but  by  accomplices  ?     If  men  of  purity 


THE    DEFENDERS.  393 

and  innocence  only  can  convict  in  such  cases,  crimes  the  most  dan- 
gerous to  the  public  must  for  ever  pass  unpunished. 

Cooke,  Clayton,  Turner,  Flood,  Hanlon,  and  Clarke,  were  then  dis- 
charged from  their  imprisonment. 

Thomas  Dry,  who  had  been  out  on  bail  on  a  charge  of  being  a 
Defender,  was  called,  and  appearing,  he  was  discharged  on  his  own 
recognizance  of  £50. 

Mr.  Attorney- General  said  that  the  principal  witness  against 
Oliver  Corbally,  charged  with  high  treason,  had  absconded.  The 
crown  therefore  would  not  produce  any  evidence  against  him. 

A  jury  was  then  impannelled,  to  whom  Oliver  Corbally  was  given 
in  chai'ge,  and  acquitted  for  want  of  prosecution. 

James  Weldon,  who  had  been  convicted,  was  now  ordered  up  for 
sentence.  His  indictment  was  read,  and  he  was  asked,  what  he  had 
to  say,  why  judgment  of  death  should  not  be  pronounced  against  him  ? 

Mr.  M'Nally. — My  lords,  I  shall  humbly  submit  to  your  lordships, 
that,  the  j  udgment  in  this  case  ought  to  be  arrested.  Each  count  in 
an  indictment  is  in  the  nature  of  a  separate  indictment,  and  therefore 
each  coxint  should  contain  all  the  legal  and  essential  requisites  of  an 
indictment.  If  any  of  these  essential  requisites  be  omitted,  the 
indictment  is  vitiated,  and  the  judgment  must  be  arrested.  Every 
indictment  and  therefore  every  count  ought  to  have  formal  conclu- 
sion ;  here  the  first  count  has  not  such  conclusion.  It  does  not  say 
against  the  allegiance — against  the  peace — or  contrary  to  the  statute. 
Therefore  the  count  is  to  be  thi'own  out  of  consideration.  But  the 
jury  having,  notwithstanding  the  direction  of  the  court,  retui'ned  a 
general  verdict,  it  became  necessary  to  examine  the  second  count, 
and  that  is  objectionable  for  uncertainty  in  the  specification  of  the 
offer.  The  indictment  is  founded  upon  the  statute  and  ought  to 
pursue  the  words  of  it — The  statute  says,  "  if  a  man  be  adherent  to 
the  King's  enemies,  and  give  them  aid  and  comfort  either  within  the 
realm,  or  elsewhere."  The  disjunctive  particle  in  this  sentence 
creates  a  second  offence,  perfectly  distinct  from  the  first.  One  offence 
is  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  realm ;  the  other  is 
adhering  to  them  without  the  realm.  This  is  somewhat  a  ncAv  case. 
I  have  taken  pains  to  search  for  precedents  of  indictments  for  adhe- 
ring to  the  King's  enemies  and  have  found  but  one  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  but  it  is  so  vague  and  such  a  riddle  as  not  to  hold  a  moment. 
But  referring  to  the  words  of  the  statute,  I  wish  to  know,  for  which 
offence  this  man  is  indicted  in  the  second  count.  The  indictment 
should  state  that  he  adhei'ed  to  the  King's  enemies  within  the  realm, 
or  that  he  adhered  to  them  without,  according  to  the  words  of  the 
statute  constituting  the  crime.  There  is  a  strong  reason  for  this. 
Suppose  he  were  acquitted,  he  might  be  indicted  for  adhering  to  the 
King's  enemies  without  the  realm,  and  he  could  not  plead  autre  fois 
acquit,  because  he  would  be  told  the  indictment  were  not  the  same. 
Therefore  this  indictments  being  essentially  defective  in  omitting  the 
words  of  the  statute,  the  man  is  not  convicted  according  to  law.  I 
take  this  to  be  a  rule,  that  where  two  things  are  included  within  a 
sentence,  sepai-ate  in  their  nature,  a  man  cannot  be  indicted  indiscrimi- 
nately for  both,  but  the  indictment  should  distinguish  between  them. 
There  might  have  been   a  third  count   for   adhering   to   the  King's 


39^  TRIALS     OF 

I 

enemies  within  the  realm  or  without,  and  then  a  general  verdict  Avould 
prevent  any  objection. 

Mr.  Attorney-General — My  lords,  it  will  be  very  unnecessary 
for  me  to  give  you  much  trouble.  It  is  said,  you  should  arrest  the 
judgment  for  error  in  both  the  counts.  It  is  said  each  count  should 
be  considered  in  itself  as  a  complete  indictment.  For  the  substance 
of  the  charge,  the  rule  is  so.  But  where  there  are  many  counts,  each 
specifying  an  oiFence,  the  indictment  may  have  one  general  conclusion, 
going  to  the  whole.  As  here,  to  simplify  the  case,  the  prisoner  is 
charged  with  compassing  the  death  of  the  King,  and  the  next  count 
specifies  a  new  charge,  that  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  Both 
being  thus  specified,  and  there  being  prefatory  matter,  stating  what 
the  prisoner  was,  and  his  designs,  then  comes  the  general  conclusion 
of  the  indictment,  applying  to  both  counts.  If  any  man  of  common 
understanding,  clear  of  technical  modes  of  reasoning,  read  this 
indictment,  he  will  find  so,  and  it  is  according  to  the  order  used  since 
the  introduction  of  the  English  law,  the  conclusion  always  going  to 
every  count  contained  in  the  indictment.  After  having  stated  what 
the  designs  were,  it  says,  he  is  guilty  of  compassing  the  King's  death 
and  of  adhei'ing  to  the  King's  enemies,  and  then  there  is  a  general 
conclusion,  not  confined  to  one  or  other  count,  but  going  to  both 
offences  included  within  the  same  statute.  I  believe  all  that  which 
was  so  much  to  the  disgrace  of  the  law,  in  taking  technical  objections, 
has  been  exploded,  in  a  variety  of  instances,  and  provided  substantial 
justice  has  been  done,  courts  of  justice  do  not  attend  to  objections  of 
this  sort  unless  they  are  absolutely  bound  so  to  do.  If  in  the  common 
course  of  language  this  conclusion  can  be  applied  to  both  charges, 
your  lordships  will  do  so,  according  to  the  modes  now  adopted  upon 
cases  of  this  sort,  and  it  will  be  sufiicient  to  refer  your  lordships 
to  your  own  understanding,  without  further  argument. 

As  to  the  second  objection,  it  is  somewhat  savouring  of  substance, 
that  the  indictment  should  state  whether  he  adhered  to  the  King's 
enemies,  either  within  the  realm  or  without.  An  objection  of  that 
sort  being  made,  I  expected,  that  some  precedent  would  be  shown,  or 
some  authority  that  would  warrant  the  objection.  This  indictment  is 
conformable  to  the  precedents  I  have  seen,  and  when  your  lordships 
look  into  the  statute,  you  will  find  there  can  be  no  ground  for  the 
objection — "  Within  the  realm,  or  elsewhere" — is  not  part  of  the 
description  of  the  crime,  as  set  forth  upon  the  face  of  the  statute. 
The  crime  is  "  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies" — that  is  what  the 
statute  has  declared — "  if  any  man  levy  war,  or  be  adherent  to  the 
King's  enemies  in  the  realm  and  gives  them  comfort  elsewhere" — if 
he  adhere  to  them,  by  giving  them  comfort  in  the  realm  or  elsewhere 
— in  a  word,  as  if  the  statute  said — "  If  he  give  them  aid,  let  them  be 
where  they  may" — let  the  act  done  be  within  the  realm  or  without, 
he  is  alike  guilty  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  Your  lordships 
see  by  the  context,  they  are  superfluous  words,  because  it  clearly 
shews,  that  if  aid  be  given  anywhere,  the  party  giving  it  will  be 
guilty. 

[Here  Mr.  Attorney- General  was  stopped.] 
Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain, — We  will  not  trouble  you  any  further, 


THE    DEFENDERS.  395 

find  it  would  not  be  foir  to  the  man,  if  we  by  our  conduct  insinuated, 
tliat  tlie  objections  were  likely  to  prevail.  We  ai'e  of  opinion,  that 
the  objections  are  not  founded  ;  that  the  conclusion  in  sense  and 
according  to  precedents  goes  to  both  counts.  So  it  is  in  all  declara- 
tions. Therefore  there  is  nothing  in  the  first  objection.  We  are 
also  of  opinion,  that  the  essence  of  the  offence  is  adhering  to  the 
King's  enemies,  and  it  is  immaterial  where  they  are.  It  is  an  offence 
not  constituted  by  statute,  but  an  offence  at  common  law,  and  the 
statute  only  says,  that  no  man  shall  be  indicted  but  for  treason,  as 
there  specified.  It  is  not  created  by  the  act — And  indeed,  if  it  were 
necessary,  it  does  substantially  appear,  because  two  overt  acts  state, 
that  an  open  and  public  war  is  carried  on  by  the  French,  and  that 
the  prisoner  was  adhering  to  the  persons  exei'cising  the  government 
of  France.  So  that  if  it  were  necessary,  it  is  substantially  charged 
that  he  was  adhering  to  the  enemies,  without  the  realm. 

Mr.  Justice  Finucane I  agree,  that  the  conclusion  goes  to  both 

counts,  and  with  regard  to  the  last  count,  I  think  the  statute  is 
completely  complied  with  in  this  indictment.  "Be  adherent  to  the 
King's  enemies  within  the  realm  or  elsewhere" — At  the  time  this 
statute  was  passed,  no  treason  could  be  tried,  but  treason  within  the 
realm,  and  that  is  the  treason  specified,  "  giving  them  aid  within  the 
realm" — then  are  added  the  words,  "  or  without" — How  is  the  charge 
here  ? — that  the  prisoner  at  Suftblk-street  in  the  city  of  Dublin,  &c. 
The  locality  is  annexed  to  the  person  adhering,  not  to  the  enemy  to 
whom  he  adhered.  Therefore  this  is  a  sufficient  charge  within  the 
words  of  the  statute. 

Mr.  Baron  George. — I  concur  perfectly  with  the  rest  of  the 
court. 

Mr.  Baron  George  then,  after  a  suitable  and  pathetic  exordium, 
pronounced  the  sentence  of  the  law,  that  the  prisoner  be  executed  on 
the  2d  of  March,  1796. 


THE  procep:ding8 


ON  THE 


TRIAL 


OF 


THOMAS    KENNEDY. 


COMMISSION. 

Monday,  February  22,  1796. 

Lord  Clonmel  sat  as  the  Judge  of  the  Commission,  and  was 
assisted  by  Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain  and  Mr.  Baron  George. 

Brady,  Kennedy  and  Hart  having  postponed  their  trials  at  last 
Commission,  upon  the  indictment  then  depending  {vid.  ante,  p.  348,) 
new  bills  were  sent  up  to  the  grand  jury,  which  being  returned 
true  bills  ;  copies  thereof  were  served  upon  the  prisoners  previous  to 
this  Commission,  and  at  their  own  desire,  Messrs.  M'Nally  and 
Lysaght  were  assigned  their  counsel. 

This  day  Thomas  Kennedy  was  put  to  the  bar,  and  arraigned  upon 
the  following  indictment. 

The  indictment  varied  but  little  from  that  in  Weldon's  case,  and  it 
is  therefore  thought  unnecessary  to  set  it  out  at  length.  The  counts 
were  for  the  same  ti'easons  as  in  Weldon's  case,  and  the  overt  acts 
were  participations  in  the  designs  of  the  Defenders  ;  the '  publication 
or  possession  of  the  treasonable  papers ;  assisting  Weldon  in  the 
administering  of  the  oath  to  Lawler ;  causing  Lawler  to  repeat  the 
catechism  ;  and  swearing  him  as  a  Defender.  The  overt  acts  in 
support  of  both  counts  wei-e  the  same. 

The  prisoner  pleaded.  Not  Guilty. 

The  following  gentlemen  were  sworn  upon 

THE    JURY. 

Alexander  Kirkpatrick,  Joshua  Paul  Meredith, 

Samuel  Tyndal,  George  Adamson, 

Cornelius  Gautier,  Samuel  Middleton, 

John  Evatt,  John  Ormston, 

David  Weir,  Meade  Nesbitt, 

Wm.  Watson,  jun.  Godfrey  Bourne. 


398  TRIALS  OF 

William  Lawler,*  sworn — examined  by  IMr.  Saurin. 

Said  he  went  to  London  in  the  year  1791,  where  he  worked  at  his, 
business,  which  was  that  of  a  gilder  ;  became  a  member  of  the  London 
Corresponding  Society  ;  their  object  was  a  radical  reform  in  Parlia-! 
ment ;  returned  to  Ireland  about  two  years  ago ;  had  a  letter  of  j 
introduction  from  Daniel  Isaac  Eaton,  a  bookseller,  in  London,  to  Mr. ! 
Archibald  Hamilton  Rowan,  of  Dublin  ;  did  not  know  the  contents  of  i 
the  letter,  but  it  was  to  introduce  him  to  Mr.  Rowan ;  did  not  ask 
Eaton  for  the  letter,  but  understood  he  corresponded  with  Rowan.  | 
Witness,  upon  his  return  to  Ireland,  became  a  member  of  a  society ;  does  i 
not  recollect  the  name  ;  it  was  soon  after  dissolved  ;  it  was  a  repub- 
lican society  ;  gave  the  letter  to  a  servant  of  Mr.  Rowan's  two  or  three 
days  after  he  arrived ;  does  not  know  the  street ;  it  was  the  left-hand 
of  Britain-street ;  called  in  a  few  days  and  saw  Mr.  Rowan  himself ; 
he  gave  witness  a  print  of  Thomas  Paine.  Witness  became  acquainted 
with  Bui-ke,  who  was  expelled  the  College,  and  Atkinson,  the  son  of 
a  watch-maker  in  Skinner-row,  who  told  him  Burke  was  collecting 
ten  men,  and  desired  witness  to  meet  him  at  Gallan's,  in  Crane-lane ; 
the  Telegraphic  Society  afterwards  met  in  Hoey's  court ;  Burke  told 
him  the  plan  was  that  he  himself  named  ten,  each  of  whom  was  to  find 
ten  others,  and  each  of  those  were  to  find  five  ;  this  would  make  a 
sufficient  force  to  take  the  Castle  of  Dublin  ;  one  hundred  were  to  be 
clothed  in  scarlet  uniforms,  to  make  the  citizens  believe  the  soldiers 
had  joined  them  ;  witness  made  up  his  ten  in  a  fortnight,  and  procured 
a  room  in  High-street,  where  they  met ;  they  were  called  the  Philan- 
thropic Society.  About  a  fortnight  after  the  Fermanagh  Militia  Avent 
to  Lehanstown  Camp  witness  became  a  Defender  ;  was  introduced  to 
that  society  by  Kennedy,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  and  Brady ;  they 
called  at  his  lodgings  on  Sunday  evening,  and  brought  him  to  the 
Horse  Barrack,  where  he  was  to  be  sworn  a  Defender  by  Weldon,  to 
whom  witness  was  to  pay  a  shilling,  as  he  was  a  committee-man  ;  had 
known  Brady  and  Kennedy  before  ;  they  were  members  of  the  Philan- 
thropic Society ;  had  a  conversation  with  them  three  weeks  before 
about  Defenders  ;  they  said  there  was  a  thing  getting  among  the  army, 
so  that  they  could  do  without  the  societies  ;  they  said  they  were  sworn 
by  Hanlon,  of  the  F'ei'managh  Militia,  and  as  Hanlon  had  gone  to  the 
camp,  they  would  bring  the  witness  to  Weldon,  whom  they  met  at  a 
public-house  opposite  the  Barrack-gate ;  they  were  joined  by  Clayton ; 
Weldon  said,  "  had  we  not  better  make  these  two  ?"  meaning  Clayton 
and  the  witness  ;  a  prayer-book  was  produced,  and  Weldon  jiulled  tAvo 
papers  out  of  his  pocket,  desired  the  witness  and  Clayton  to  lay  their 
right  hands  on  the  book,  and  repeat  after  him,  which  Avas  done  ;  these 
are  the  papers.  The  next  time  Avitness  saw  these  papers  Avas  about 
eight  days  after  Weldon  left  toAvn,  in  the  possession  of  Kennedy,  in 
Drury-lane ;  Murphy  and  Fay  Avere  Avith  the  Avitness ;  kncAv  them  to 
be  Defenders  by  their  using  the  signs ;  Kennedy  came  out  of  his 
master's  house  in  Drury-lane  Avith  these  papers ;   Avitness  challenged 

*  The  general  tenor  of  the  witness's  testimony  upon  this  trial,  corresponding- 
with  what  he  had  given  in  the  two  former  cases,  it  is  abridged  considerably  and 
given  in  the  form  of  a  narrative,  rather  than  by  question  and  answer. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  399 

them,  loud  enough  for  all  to  hear  ;  Kennedy  allowed  them  to  be  the 
same  papers ;  when  Weldon  swore  them  upon  the  test,  he  told  them 
the  signs  by  which  they  might  know  a  Defender.     [Here  the  witness 
described  the  signs  as  before,  vide  p.  322.]     Weldon  said  Eliphismatis 
was  a  latin  word,  but  he  did  know  the  meaning  of  it.     He  also  said, 
"  if  the  King's  head  were  off  to-mon*ow  they  would  be  no  longer  under 
his  government."     Witness  asked  Weldon  was  he  not  afraid  to  cany 
those  papers  about  him ;  he  said  no,  for  he  was  never  searched,  and 
did  not  care  who  saw  the  large  one,  the  small  one  was  the  principal, 
the  other  was  only  a  test  on  account  of  swearing  the  soldiers.    Brady 
asked  if  there  was  any  one  to  head  them  ?     Weldon  said  there  was 
'  one  in  the  North,  but  did  not  mention  his  name.     Kennedy  asked  how 
they  would  be  informed  ?     Weldon  said  there  would  be  letters  sent 
through  the  country  to  inform  the  Defenders  when  they  were  to  rise. 
Brady  asked  how  every  one  would  know  it  ?     Weldon  said  by  the 
committee-men  ;  he  would  tell  Brady  when  the  next  meeting  would 
be  held,  that  there  would  be  one  next  week.     Clayton  and  Kennedy 
then  went  away,  the  rest  remained  drinking  punch  ;  they  were  all 
sober,  but  Kennedy  was  obliged  to  go  home,  being  an  apprentice.   [The 
witness  then  gave  an  account  of  the  meeting  in  Plunket-street,  pre- 
cisely as  in  the  former  case,  vide  p.  328.]     The  next  meeting  was  at 
Stoneybatter,  which  was  held  for  the  purpose  of  going  out  to  take  arms. 
Hart  swore  a  young  man,  and  mentioned  that  their  object  was  to  assist 
the  French.     This  was  some  time  in  the  month  of  August.     The 
next  meeting  was  at  Nowlan's,  in  Drury-lane,  on  Sunday  the  23d  of 
August ;  a  good  many  attended  ;  Coifey  was  in  the  chair  ;  he  wanted 
to  know  how  many  Defenders  were  in  Dixblin,  that  they  might  have 
officers  placed  over  them  ;  it  was  agreed  to  meet  on  the  Sunday  fol- 
lowing, when  the  committee-men  would  report  the  numbers.     Hart 
and  the  witness  were  called  to  order  for  talking  together.     Hart  told 
!  him — [this  evidence  was  objected  to  and  not  admitted].    The  day  after 
i  he  ceased  to  be  a  Defender,  and  gave  information  to  Mr.  Cowan,  in 
Grafton-street.     Witness's  reason  was  on  account  of  what  he  had 
heard  from  Hart,  as  to  the  designs  of  the  Defenders  ;  heard  there  was 
to  be  a  meeting  at  Crumlin  ;  told  Mr.  Cowan  of  it  and  also  Alderman 
James ;  witness  went  there  to  delay  them  ;  they  went  to  that  place  to 
be  out  of  the  way  ;  the  prisoner  was  not  at  Crumlin  ;  witness  told  the 
Alderman  he  would  be  there,  and  knew  he  himself  was  to  be  taken 
with  the  rest ;  told  Alderman  James  that  the  papers  upon  which  witness 
was  sworn  by  Weldon  were  in  Kennedy's  fob  ;  saw  them  at  a  meeting 
at  Dry's,  in  Cork-street,  on  the  23d  of  August,  when  they  were  pro- 
duced by  Kennedy,  who  took  them  from  his  fob,  and  asked  if  Lewis 
was  not  a  proper  person  to  be  sworn  a  Defender  ? — was  answered  by 
Dry  he  was ;    Coffey  produced  the  prayer-book  ;  Kennedy  laid  the 
papers  upon  Coffey's  bed,  which  was  strapped  up  like  a  ti'unk ;  there 
were  three  papers  ;   Kennedy  said  he  had  written  one  himself,  for 
there  was  one  of  Weldon's  which  he  did  not  like ;  witness  paid  no 
attention  to  the  third  paper  ;  after  Lewis  was  sworn,  Kennedy  put  the 
papers  into  his  fob  again ;  Lewis  called  on  witness  the  same  day  after 
dinner  ;  they  went  to  the  Philanthropic  Society,  which  usually  met  at 
Dry's,  in  Cork-street ;  it  was  to  meet  that  evening  at  five  o'clock  ;  the 
meeting  at  Nowlan's  was  to  be  at  six ;  Lewis  was  sworn  before  they 


400  TRIALS    OF 

went  to  Nowlan's  ;  saw  the  papers  with  Kennedy  at  Dry's,  but  not  at 
Nowlan's  ;  when  he  read  the  papers,  he  read g's  Kings. 

[The  catechism  and  oath  were  then  read.] 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Was  brought  up  in  the  Protestant  religion ;  his  father  and  mother 
were  Pi-otestants  ;  knows  that  every  true  Protestant  believes  in  the 
Trinity ;  went  with  the  Methodists  before  he  went  to  England,  but 
did  not  then  deny  the  Protestant  religion  ;  sometimes  went  to  church, 
sometimes  to  chapel ;  continued  a  Methodist  after  his  return  to 
Ireland  ;  has  read  the  first  and  second  parts  of  Paine's  Rights  of 
Man,  but  never  read  his  Age  of  Reason  ;  always  believed  in  God, 
and  a  future  state,  but  Burke  wanted  to  persuade  him  to  believe  there 
was  no  Saviour,  and  that  he  was  a  false  prophet ;  Burke  gave  him  a 
little  book  written  by  himself,  and  signed  with  his  name,  in  support 
of  his  doctrine  ;  it  shook  witness  in  his  belief,  but  he  was  since  con- 
vinced of  his  error,  and  was  sorry  for  it ;  had  done  many  things 
before  which  were  wrong.  Witness  asked  the  chairmen  at  the  corner 
of  the  street,  what  number  Rowan  lived  at ;  the  name  of  the  street  was 
on  the  back  of  the  letter ;  Eaton  told  him,  he  mentioned  him  in  the 
letter  to  Rowan ;  never  was  charged  with  bringing  a  false  letter  to 
Rowan  ;  there  was  a  false  name  in  the  letter  to  Rowan,  for  witness 
went  by  the  name  of  Wright  in  London,  and  that  must  have  been  the 
name  in  the  letter ;  when  witness  told  Rowan  his  name,  where  he 
lived  and  of  the  Corresponding  Society,  Rowan  did  not  ask  him  to 
come  again ;  he  gave  witness  some  printed  papers,  does  not  recollect 
exactly  what  they  were ;  never  was  charged  with  being  a  thief ;  it 
was  said  he  took  a  frame  from  Mr.  Robinson's,  but  another  person 
afterwards  told  him  he  knew  who  stole  it ;  Rowan  asked  him  about 
the  society  in  London  and  the  militia,  and  about  forming  a  society 
here  ;  this  passed  in  Newgate  ;  one  Strephon,  who  came  to  witness, 
mentioned  a  wish,  that  there  should  be  a  society  formed  here  like  the 
London  Corresponding  Society  ;  Avitness  advised  an  application  to 
Rowan,  who  approved  of  it,  but  desired  them  to  be  cautious,  as  they 
saw  Avhat  a  scrape  he  had  got  into ;  the  reason  he  changed  his  name 
was  on  account  of  his  having  enlisted,  and  deserted  ;  does  not  exactly 
I'ecoUect  what  he  swore  when  he  was  arrested  ;  was  not  then  a  member 
of  any  Society ;  after  he  deserted,  he  became  a  member  of  the 
London  Corresponding  Society,  went  publicly  there,  and  being  but 
little  known,  thought  there  was  no  danger  of  his  being  appi-ehended, 
particularly  as  he  had  changed  his  name ;  belonged  to  the  16th 
division  of  the  Con-esponding  Society ;  believes  he  was  guilty  of  a 
breach  of  his  oath,  when  he  deserted;  is  sorry  for  it ;  he  collected  ten 
members  for  the  Philanthropic  society,  they  were  sworn  not  to  with- 
draw from  the  society,  nor  divulge  their  secrets  ;  did  not  upon  any 
former  occasion  swear  in  evidence,  that  the  oath  was,  not  to  give 
evidence  against  each  other ;  hopes  he  will  b(;  pardoned  for  all  his 
offences,  but  cannot  hope  for  reward,  as  nothing  had  been  promised 
him ;  made  no  objection  to  Weldon's  oath,  nor  was  he  shocked  at  the 
supposition  of  the  King's  head  being  cut  off";  lie  did  not  then  think 
it  a  criminal  act ;  one  of  their  members  had  been  arrested  and  lodged 
in  a  watch-house  ;  they  went  to  take  liim  out,  there  was  a  shot  fired ; 


THE    DEFENDERS.  401 

is  not  bound  to  tell  who  fired  the  shot ;  after  a  meeting  in  Stoney- 
batter  with  Fay  and  Kennedy,  the  prisoner  and  some  others,  they  had 
a  talk  of  a  design  to  attack  the  Chancellor  in  the  course  of  the  winter, 
as  he  returned  from  the  house  of  lords,  and  to  hang  him  from  one  of 
the  trees  in  Stephen's-green  ;  did  not  mention  this  in  his  information 
to  Alderman  James,  but  intended  to  have  mentioned  it  to  him  ;  it 
might  not  have  come  out  now  had  not  counsel  desired  him  to  tell  all 
the  treasons  he  knew  of ;  does  not  know  who  threw  the  stone  at  the 
Chancellor,  nor  did  he  see  it  thrown ;  told  Alderman  James  the 
reason  he  became  a  Defender  was  to  know  what  they  were  about ; 
agreed  with  them  in  everything  but  what  he  heard  Hart  say  ;  has 
been  kept  in  close  custody  in  the  Castle  for  three  months  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  evidence  against  the  prisoner's ;  Burke  Avas  the 
principal  person,  who  led  him  astray  in  religious  matters  ;  Mr.  Cowan 
advised  him  to  give  information  ;  was  standing  in  Dame-street  the 
day  lord  Camden  arrived  here  ;  was  also  in  the  Castle-yard  that  day ; 
never  threw  a  stone  at  the  Chancellor,  nor  heard  of  a  stone  being  to 
be  thrown,  till  after  it  was  thrown  ;  does  not  recollect  any  reason  he 
had  for  going  home  early  the  evening  the  stone  was  thrown  ;  was 
called  on  and  went  out  with  the  party  to  confine  Cockayne ;  were 
prevented  by  his  not  being  at   Mrs.  Jackson's  ;    Le  Blanc   said   if 

Cockayne  was  put  to  death,  what  he  had  sworn  would  stand  good  ; 

witness  had  a  pistol  when  he  was  in  the  watch-house  ;  there  was  a 
pistol  fired,  it  had  a  ball  in  it ;  was  present  at  the  attack  upon  a  house 
I  tjie  corner  of  Bull-alley,  in  going  home  ;  had  pistols  about  him,  but 
does  not  know  whether  he  had  charged  them  or  not ;  it  was  a  crimpinf- 
house ;  believes  the  oath  was  written  by  Hanlon,  the  Fermanao-h 
militia-man. 

Alderman  James,  sworn — Examined  by  Mr.  Solicitor- General. 

Lawler  came  to  him  with  Mr.  Cowan,  about  the  26th  of  Auo-ust, 
and  lodged  informations.  His  evidence  upon  the  former  trials  and 
the  present,  corresponded  with  the  account  he  then  gave,  except  as 
to  the  design  upon  the  Chancellor.  The  alderman  issued  warrants 
against  several  persons  in  consequence  of  the  informations,  and 
he  desired  Mr.  Carleton,  the  chief  constable,  to  be  particular  in 
examining  Kennedy's  fob,  for  Lawler  said  the  oath  would  be  found 
there ;  took  Lawler's  examinations  the  first  time  he  saw  him ;  no 
examinations  had  been  lodged  against  Lawler  at  that  time,  nor  did 
the  alderman  ever  issue  a  warrant  for  his  apprehension,  but  issued 
warrants  against  many  other  persons  upon  his  informations. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Lysaght. 

Lawler  did  not  disclose  the  circumstance  respecting  the  Chancellor. 
The  alderman  thought  it  his  duty  to  find  out  everything  ;  cannot  say 
that  Lawler  intentionally  withheld  it;  he  did  not  disclose  the  circum- 
stance of  his  enlisting  or  deserting,  or  that  he  had  fired  a  shot  into 
the  watch  house.  He  was  examined  after  dinner,  about  eight  o'clock ; 
no  warrant  was  issued  to  apprehend  him,  but  he  was  taken  at  the 
house  of  one  Toole  in  Crumlin,  in  consequence  of  his  information 
that  he  would  be  there. 

2d 


402  TRIALS     OF 

Oliver  Carleton,  Esq — Examined  by  Mr.  Ruxton. 

Was  high  constable  of  police  in  August  last ;  received  warrants 
from  Alderman  James  against  Kennedy,  the  prisoner,  and  Brady,  in 
consequence  of  which  he  went  to  Stephen-street,  between  four  and 
five  in  the  morning  of  the  27th  of  August ;  rapped  very  loud  at  the 
door,  two  persons  came  to  a  gate  and  opened  it ;  he  asked  their  names,  i 
they  answered,  Kennedy  and  Bi-ady  ;  he  took  them  into  custody,  and 
agreeable  to  the  directions  he  had  received,  was  particular  in  searching 
Kennedy's  fob,  in  which  he  found  the  oath  and  catechism ;  [they 
were  here  shewn  to  the  witness,  and  he  identified  them  from  the 
initials  of  his  name.] 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

He  asked  Kennedy  how  the  papers  came  there,  and  what  was  the 
use  of  them  ? — He  made  no  answer. 

Case  rested  for  the  crown. 

Mr.  M'Nally — My  lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  am  of 
counsel  in  this  case  with  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Lysaght ;  and  it 
therefore  becomes  my  duty  to  call  your  attention  to  the  defence  of  the 
unfortunate  young  boy,  who  stands  a  prisoner  at  the  bar  of  the  court, 
arraigned  for  high  treason.  Gentlemen,  I  apply  to  him  the  epithet 
of  unfortunate,  not  because  the  evidence  that  has  been  given  against 
him,  can,  in  my  humble  opinion,  impress  your  minds  with  a  con- 
ception of  his  being  guilty,  but,  because  any  subject  of  the  crown, 
standing  in  his  situation,  standing  in  that  dock,  and  before  this 
tribunal,  accused  of  the  most  heinous  offence  the  law  recognizes,  and 
punishable  by  the  most  cruel  sentence  the  law  knows,  must  be  con- 
sidered as  unfortunate,  however  conscious  of  his  own  innocence. 
Gentlemen,  I  address  you  on  the  part  of  this  unfortunate  youth, 
under  the  influence  of  that  reverential  awe  that  always  influences  my 
mind  when  calling  for  the  attention  of  a  jury  of  your  description.  A 
jury  which  I  am  convinced,  from  my  personal  knowledge  of  some  of 
you,  and  from  the  general  character  of  you  all,  is  composed  of  wise 
and  intelligent  men  ;  men  who  are  well  acquainted  with  the  principles 
of  those  laws  under  which  we  live,  and  by  which  the  lowest  of  us  are 
protected,  and  fully  adequate  to  the  honest  discharge  of  that  high  and 
respectable,  I  was  going  to  say  paramount  office,  which  they  fill.  In 
addressing  you,  gentlemen,  I  must  of  course,  feel  for  my  own  defi- 
ciency ;  but  I  find  consolation  from  this  reflection  ;  that  you,  actuated 
by  the  principles  of  mercy,  while  guided  by  the  rules  of  law  and 
justice,  will  contribute  every  aid  to  such  observations  as  I  shall 
submit  to  your  deliberation.  Gentlemen,  every  man  who  admires 
and  loves  the  constitution  of  his  country,  (and  every  man  who  is  not 
either  a  Knave,  a  fool,  a  lunatic,  or  an  infant,  must  admire  its  system,) 
I  say  every  man  who  loves  and  admires  the  system  of  our  constitution, 
must  look  up  to  juries  as  the  legal  guardians,  protectors,  and  conser- 
vators of  the  lives,  the  liberties  and  the  properties  of  the  people.  I 
consider  a  jury  as  a  political  citadel,  placed  in  the  centre  of  the 
constitution — a  citadel,  where  liberty  has  often  planted  her  standard, 
and  where  she  must  always  make  an  effectual  stand  against  oppression 
and  tyranny,  unless  betrayed  by  those  whose  sacred  duty  it  is  to 
protect  her.     Gentlemen,  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  make  a  few 


THE    DEFENDERS.  403 

observations  to  you  on  what  has  fallen  from  Mr.  Attorney- General, 
in  stating  tlie  case  for  the  crown  ;  and  my  leading  observation  is, 
that  tlie  learned  gentleman,  in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duty,  has 
this  day,  in  the  most  honourable  and  candid  manner,  stated  the  case 
against  the  prisoner,  without  an  attempt  to  aggravate  or  colour  the 
charge ;  and  I  doubt  not  but  those  other  learned  counsel  for  the 
prosecution,  whose  duty  calls  upon  them  to  follow  Mr.  Attorney- 
General,  will  adopt  the  same  manly  and  humane  conduct. 

I  beg  leave,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to  remind  you  of  the  excellent 
caution  urged  with  warmth  and  with  clemency,  by  the  Attorney- 
General.  He  cautioned  you  against  acting  under  prejudices  resulting 
from  extrinsic  causes.  His  advice  was  just,  legal  and  wise.  A  juror 
should  divest  his  mind  of  all  extrinsic  matters ;  he  should  come  into 
that  box  pure,  unsullied  and  unbiassed  as  an  infant  entering  into  life  ; 
the  evidence  given  in  court  should  be  the  only  object  of  his  delibera- 
tion. On  the  evidence  sworn  to  in  court,  and  that  evidence  only,  he 
is  bound  in  conscience,  by  his  oath,  to  form  his  verdict :  For  what 
is  his  oath  ?  He  is  sworn  on  the  Testament  of  his  faith,  that  he  will 
well  and  truly  try,  and  a  true  deliverance  make  between  his  Sovereign 
the  King  and  the  prisoner,  according  to  evidence.  For  this  reason, 
gentlemen,  if  French  politics  or  French  depredations,  be  stated,  you 
will  consider  them  as  extraneous  to  the  matter  in  issue  ;  and,  for  this 
reason,  should  the  counsel  for  the  crown  attempt  to  engage  your 
passions  by  adverting  to  the  distracted  state  of  this  or  that  country, 
you  will  expunge  such  statement  from  your  recollection.  For,  gen- 
tlemen, you  are  not  sworn  to  give  a  verdict  upon  the  state  of  France, 
or  upon  the  state  of  Ireland,  but  truly  to  try  upon  the  evidence,  given 
to  you  upon  oath,  whether  the  prisoner  be  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  the 
crimes  of  high  treason,  charged  upon  him  by  the  indictment.  Gen- 
tlemen, the  Attorney-General  has  adverted  to  the  public  newspapers, 
and  has  stated  to  you  that  through  their  medium  pains  had  been 
taken  to  influence  the  public  mind,  in  respect  to  the  trials  for  treason, 
now  prosecuting  by  government.  Gentlemen,  I  do  think  with  Mr. 
Attorney- General,  that  animadversions  on  legal  proceedings  while 
they  are  pending,  is  an  offence ;  but  if  Mr.  Attorney- General  has 
read  all  the  public  papers,  he  must  know  that  such  animadversions 
have  not  been  confined  to  papers  of  any  particular  political  description  ; 
for  in  those  papers  denominated  Court  Prints,  the  writers  of  them 
have  not  only  traduced  those  who  have  appeared  as  witnesses  for  the 
prisoner,  but  those  employed  as  their  counsel.  In  one  of  those  morn- 
ing prints,  I  have  been  noticed  with  censure,  and  the  character  with 
whom  I  had  the  honour  to  act  on  a  trial  at  the  last  commission,  a 
character  as  great  and  eminent  for  genius,  as  ever  appeared  at  this  or 
any  bar,  has  been  calumnated  for  exerting  his  paramount  abilities  in 
defence  of  his  client.*     But,  gentlemen,  I  am  satisfied  that  whatever 

*  Alluding  to  John  Philpot  Curran,  who  suffered  still  more  from  similar  causes 
at  a  later  period,  when  engaged  in  the  defence  of  the  United  Irishmen  in  1798. 
"  Mr.  Curran,  upon  those  memorable  trials,  exposed  his  character  at  the  time  to 
the  foulest  misrepresentations.  The  furious  and  the  timid  considered  it  as  an  act 
of  loyalty  to  brand  as  little  better  than  a  traitor  the  advocate  who,  in  defending 
the  accused,  ventured  to  demand  those  legal  privileges  and  that  fair,  impartial 
hearing,  to  which,  by  the  constitution  of  their  country,  they  were  entitled.     He 


404  TRIALS    OF 

you  have  heard,  or  whatever  you  have  read  relative  to  the  subject 
now  before  you — you   will  obliterate  from  your  memories,  confining 
your  deliberations  solely  to  the  evidence  given  in  open  court.     Gen- 
tlemen, Mr.  Attorney- General  has  spoken  of  the  necessity  of  making 
an  example — in  my  humble  opinion  this  was  not  a  subject  to  be 
addressed  to  you ;  for,  gentlemen,  it  is  not  your  pi'ovince  to  make  1 
examples,  that  last  and  distressing  duty,  founded  in  necessity,  belongs 
to  another  tribunal.     Your  duty  is  to  hear  the  evidence,  and  on  the  I 
credit  you  give  the  evidence  to  acquit  or  convict — and  I  trust,  from  ! 
the  nature  of  the  evidence,  acquittal  will  this  day  mark  your  verdict  i 
— and  that  the  prisoner  will  not  be  found  a  subject  for  example. 

There  are,  gentlemen,  but  two  leading  features  in  this  case  to  which 
I  shall  call  your  attention  : 

First,  Mr.  Lawler,  the  principal  witness  produced  on  the  table,  and 
secondly,  the  evidence  given  l3y  that  witness.  As  to  the  witness,  ] 
though  he  does  not  come  under  the  legal  description  of  an  approver, 
as  on  a  former  occasion  was  stated  by  the  bench,  yet  it  clearly  ap- 
pears, from  his  own  confessions,  that  he  has  been  a, particeps  criminis, 
in  a  catalogue  of  offences  as  vile  and  black  as  ever  stained  a  human 
heart,  or  disgraced  the  character  of  man  ;  therefore  he  comes  before 
you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  at  least  a  questionable  shape,  and  within 
that  rule  of  law  and  legal  evidence,  that  has  been  laid  down  by  one 
of  the  wisest,  and  what  was  more  to  his  honour,  one  of  the  humanest 
judges  that  ever  presided  in  an  English  court  of  justice.  I  allude, 
gentlemen,  to  that  celebrated  jurist,  whose  noble  and  independent 
conduct  deservedly  procured  him  the  title  of  the  "  great  Lord  Hale." 
What  are  the  words  of  that  great  man  upon  approvers  ?  I  will  teU 
you,  gentlemen,  his  opinion  upon  such  witnesses.  Lord  Hale  says, 
"  though  an  approver  be  admissable  as  a  witness  in  law,  yet,  the 
credibility  of  his  testimony  is  to  be  left  to  the  jury,  and  truly  it  would 
be  hard  to  take  away  the  life  of  a  person  upon  the  evidence  of  such 
a  witness,  that  swears  to  save  his  own  ;  and  yet  confesseth  liimself 
guilty  of  so  great  a  crime — unless  there  be  very  considerable  cii'cum- 
stances,  which  may  give  greater  credit  to  what  he  swears."  This 
opinion  will  be  found  in  Hale's  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  p.  305.  Gen- 
tlemen, it  will  be  for  you  to  consider  whether  the  witness,  Lawler, 
comes  within  the  description  given  by  the  great  and  good  Lord  Hale — 
and  it  will  also  be  for  you  to  consider  that  Lord  Hale  is  here  speaking 
of  a  witness  implicated  only  in  the  offence  he  is  called  to  prove, 
coming  forward  charged  only  with  one  crime.  But,  gentlemen,  what 
would  the  learned  and  benevolent  Lord  Hale  have  said,  if  he  had 
been  speaking  of  such  a  witness  as  Lawler  ?  If  he  had  been  speaking 
of  a  particeps  criminis,  who  had  declared  he  had  taken  the  oath  of 
allegiance,  as  a  soldier  and  a  subject,  and  had  violated  that  oath  ?  If 
he  had  been  speaking  of  an  impious  man,  against  whom  it  had  been 
proved,  that  he  had  denied  the  existence  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  ? 

often  received  as  he  entered  the  court,  anonymous  letters  threatening  his  life,  if 
he  should  utter  a  syllable  that  might  bring  discredit  upon  the  public  measures  of 
the  day." — Curran's  Life  by  his  Son,  2  vol.  p  82.  In  his  defence  of  Bond,  he 
was  repeatedly  interrupted  by  the  clamorous  and  savage  gestures  of  the  military 
who  thronged  the  court.  They  mistook  the  man.  He  fixed  his  eyes  upon  them, 
and  exclaimed,  "  You  may  assassinate  me,  but  you  shall  not  intimidate  me." 


THE    DEFENDERS.  405 

'  If  he  had  been  speaking  of  a  man  who  had  administered  oaths  to 

'  seduce   and   delude   youths,    had   sworn   them    never   to   prosecute 

Defendei's,  and  had  then  come  forward  and  prosecuted  them  himself  ? 

If  he  had  been  speaking  of  a  man  who  had  united  with  conspirators 

to  assassinate  a  witness  ?     If  he  had  been  speaking  of  a  man  who  had 

confessed,  there  was  a  time  when  he  did  not  think  it  a  crime  to  take 

off  the  head  of  his  sacred  Majesty,  and  destroy  the  government  ?     I 

;  add,  destroy  the  government,  because  the  existence  of  the  constitution 

and  government  of  this  country  depends  upon  the  existence  of  the 

King,     A  man,  who,  when  the  question  was  put  could  not  deny,  and 

therefore  refused  to  answer  that  he  once  fired  a  charged  pistol  into  a 

watch-house,  with  intent  to  commit  murder ;  and  that  there  was  a 

time,  and  that  recent,  when  he  did  not  consider  it  a  crime  to  lie  in 

wait  for  the  purpose  of  seizing  and  hanging  no  less  a  person  than  the 

I  Lord  High  Chancellor  of  Ireland.     It  is  true,  gentlemen,  Mr.  Lawler 

;  is  by  his  own  account  a  repentant  sinner,  for  he  has  told  you,  he  hopes 

i  to  obtain  forgiveness  from  government  and  from  God.     He  has  now 

i  told  you  how  long  repentance  has  dawned  upon  him — but  if  he  has 

[  repented,  how  does  the  sincerity  of  his  contrition  appear  ?     Does  it 

appear  as  it  ought  ?     Does  it  appear  he  has  made  a  full  confession  of 

all  his  offences  ?     No,  for  it  appears  that  he  suppressed  the  whole  of 

the  intended  assassination  of  the  Lord  Chancellor,  and  the  intended 

assassination  of  Cockane,  when  he  gave  in  his  information  on  oath  to 

Alderman  James.     Alderman  James,  I  presume,  admonished  him,  and 

swore  him  to  tell  the  truth,  and  he  suppressed  the  truth.     I  admit,  gen  - 

tlemen,  that  necessity  on  particular  occasions,  justifies  the  admission  of 

such  witnesses  as  Mr.  Lawler,  otherwise,  if  that  was  not  the  case,  the 

most  atrocious  offences  would  often  escape  with  impunity  ;  but  permit 

me,  gentlemen,  to  advert  to  the  great  Lord  Hale,  and  on  his  authority 

to  observe,  that  even  in  such  cases  there  must  be  strong  corroborating 

circumstances  to  give  credence  to  the  man  who,  even  voluntarily,  comes 

forward  to  save  his  own  life,  by  the  sacrificing  the  life  of  another. 

Gentlemen,  the  papers  found  on  the  prisoner  and  produced  in 
evidence  to  support  this  prosecution,  will,  probably,  be  held  up  to 
you,  and  expatiated  on  by  the  counsel  for  the  crown,  as  strong  corro- 
I  bo  rating  circumstances.  But  you  must  have  remarked,  that  no 
evidence  was  given  by  Lawler  to  shew  that  these  papers  are  the 
I  identical  papers  that  were  in  the  possession  of  Weldon  ;  of  course  it 
does  not  appear  to  you  that  those  papers  were  ever  appropriated  to 
any  use,  or  ever  published  in  any  manner  by  the  prisoner  ;  and, 
gentlemen,  the  court  will  concur  with  me  in  this  rule  of  law,  that  the 
possession  of  papers  without  a  publication,  however  seditious  their 
contents  may  be,  however  treasonable  their  tendency,  does  not  amount 
to  high  treason,  for  the  mere  possession  of  treasonable  papers  does  not 
amount  to  an  overt  act.  God  forbid  it  should !  for,  if  that  was  the 
case,  no  man  would  be  safe ; — the  false  friend,  the  bribed  servant,  the 
suborned  guest,  every  spy  that  came  into  a  man's  house,  would  have 
it  in  his  power,  by  privately  depositing  a  private  paper,  to  bring  his 
innocent  intimate,  master,  or  host  to  condign  punishment.  Gentle- 
men, a  very  melancholy  case  once  occurred  in  England  which  very 
fully  illustrates  this  position.  It  is  a  case  well  known  to  the  learned 
judges  of  the  bench  ;  and,  indeed,  I  believe  of  general  notoriety.     I 


406  TRIALS     OF 

mean  the  case  of  Salmon,  Grcoghegan,  and  other  miscreants,  who, 
in  consequence  of  large  rewards,  offered  by  act  of  parliament, 
for  the  apprehension  and  conviction  of  foot-pad  robbers,  entered 
into  a  conspiracy  to  obtain  rewards,  by  falsely  accusing  innocent 
young  men.  Gentlemen,  they  accomplished  their  diabolical  scheme, 
by  insinuating  themselves  into  the  confidence  of  unsuspecting  and 
unwary  youths,  and  then  putting  marked  coin,  or  other  articles  into 
their  pockets,  by  which  they  fabricated  evidence  to  satisfy  a  jury, 
convicted  the  dupes  of  their  villainy,  and  pocketed  the  parliamentary 
I'emuneration  of  their  wickedness.  They  were  at  last  discovered,  and , 
j  ustice  cut  asunder  this  gordian  knot  of  treachery.  They  were  indicted  I 
for  murder,  but  the  law  could  not  reach  their  lives — they  were  indicted 
and  convicted  of  conspiracy ;  they  were  set  in  the  pillory,  and  the 
enraged  populace  pelted  out  the  brains  of  two  of  them.  Does  Lawler 
appear  a  man  incapable  of  such  a  villainous  scheme  ?  Is  it  impro- 
bable that  he,  with  a  hope  of  pardon  and  reward  before  him,  possessing 
the  confidence  of  the  prisoner  and  having  given  information  to  the 
magistrate,  contrived  by  some  subtle  stratagem  to  convey  these 
papers  to  the  possession  of  the  prisoner,  for  the  very  purpose  of 
using  them  afterwards  in  corroboration  of  his  own  testimony  ? 
Gentlemen,  there  is  one  circumstance  that  strengthens  this  position, 
it  is  this  :  you  must  recollect  that  Lawler  swore  his  reason  for  getting 
among  the  Defenders  was  for  the  purpose  of  coming  at  what  they 
were  about ;  but  will  you  believe  that  to  be  the  fact  ?  If  mere 
curiosity  was  his  motive,  why  did  he  not  secede  from  the  societies 
when  he  did  become  acquainted  with  the  purposes  of  their  association  ? 
He  must  have  had  a  motive,  and  that  motive  must  have  been  to 
betray — he  must  have  been  sent  in,  or  he  went  into  the  societies  for 
that  purpose.  Gentlemen,  you  cannot  for  a  moment  suppose,  that  the 
wretch  who  has  confessed  he  would  at  one  time  have  thought  it  no 
offence  to  take  off"  the  head  of  his  annointed  Sovereign,  could  at  any 
time  feel  compunction  at  murdering  his  Majesty's  subjects.  Gentle- 
men, when  you  come  to  examine  the  evidence  of  this  man,  enquire 
among  yourselves  whether  he  has  in  any  material  point  contradicted 
himself.  For  it  is  an  established  rule,  that  if  a  witness  contradict 
himself  in  any  material  part  of  his  evidence,  it  discredits  the  whole  ; 
and  so  far  has  this  wise  and  salutary  doctrine  of  evidence  been  carried 
that  Lord  Mansfield  extending  the  rule  to  civil  causes,  has  on  trials 
where  one  witness  has  given  false  testimony,  though  there  were  other 
witnesses  of  unimpeached  characters  examined  to  the  same  points  with 
the  prejudiced  party,directed  the  jury  to  reject  the  wholeof  the  evidence 
and  find  a  verdict  against  the  party  producing  such  a  Avitness.  Mr.  Law- 
ler's  character  is  fully  before  you  and  in  your  possession  ;  and  permit 
me  to  ask  you,  has  your  knowledge  of  it  raised  a  doubt  in  your  mind  ? 
For  if  it  has  raised  a  doubt,  you  are  bound  by  the  imperative  dictate 
of  conscience,  to  acquit  the  prisoner.  You  are  bound,  I  say,  not  to 
convict,  unless  his  testimony  be  irresistible  ;  and  when  you  take  into 
your  consideration,  that  only  one  witness  has  been  produced  to  the 
merits,  I  rest  satisfied,  that  you  will  send  this  unhappy  youth  at  the 
bar,  home  to  his  parents,  where  his  errors  may  be  corrected  and 
his  mind  imi)roved,  and  not  by  a  verdict  of  guilty  deprive  him  of  his 
life,  under  the  infliction  of  a  ju<lgment  the  most  severe  that  the  laws 


THE    DEFENDERS.  407 

of  this  country,  or  perhaps  of  any  other  country,  has  adopted.  I  here 
conchide.  We  will  now  call  witnesses  to  shew  you  and  the  court, 
that  Lawler  is  a  person  of  sucli  infamous  morals  and  holding  such 
impious  principles  in  point  of  religion,  that  he  ought  not  to  be  credited 
on  oath  giving  testimony  in  a  court  of  justice — and  then  I  rest 
satisfied,  you  will  reject  his  evidence  as  being  unworthy  of  credence, 
and  give  life  and  liberty  to  my  client,  by  a  verdict  of — not  guilty. 

Samuel  Gallan,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Lysaght. 

Lives  at  No.  2,  Crane-lane,  is  a  grocer,  has  known  Lawler  for  four 
or  five  years,  and  does  not  think  him  a  man  to  be  believed  upon  his 
oath. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Solicitor-General,. 

Witness  was  once  a  hair-dresser,  and  has  a  brother  who  has 
travelled  to  New  York,  last  September,  since  these  people  have  been 
taken  up  ;  there  were  fourteen  or  fifteen  of  them  in  a  reading  society, 
for  the  information  of  themselves ;  no  books  were  bought  while 
witness  was  in  the  society ;  they  all  gave  what  books  they  had  for 
the  use  of  the  society.  His  brother  went  to  New  York,  to  follow 
his  trade,  as  an  engraver,  and  has  been  talking  of  going  there  these 
three  years.  Witness  never  was  in  the  Philanthropic  Society,  but 
believes  his  brother  was  ;  witness  expressed  a  concern  for  Lawler, 
when  he  heard  he  was  taken  up  ;  did  not  hear  of  his  being  taken  for 
a  week  after  he  was  taken ;  witness  pitied  him,  as  being  accused  of 
Defenderism  ;  expressed  his  sorrow  and  surprise  at  it,  as  he  thought 
him  incapable  of  such  a  crime  ;  they  used  to  read  the  papers  of  the 
day  at  the  society — Goldsmith's  Animated  Nature,  Pope's  Works, 
Chamber's  Dictionary,  &c — thought  Lawler  an  innocent  lad  ;  but 
from  witness's  knowledge  of  his  religious  principles,  would  not  believe 
him  on  his  oath  ;  witness  and  Lawler  were  both  Protestants ;  does 
not  know  where  the  persons  are  who  composed  the  club ;  believes 
Burke  ran  away ;  would  not  believe  him  either  on  account  of  his 
principles ;  never  knew  any  of  the  Philanthropic  Society,  but  his 
brother,  as  he  himself  was  not  a  member ;  never  heard  of  Strephon's 
religion ;  never  expressed  his  opinion,  or  wish  for  a  reform.  [The 
witness  declined  to  answer,  whether  he  had  ever  expressed  any 
opinion  upon  government.]  Witness  is  about  twenty-four  years  of 
age,  and  never  went  to  any  other  reading"society  for  instructions  since 
he  went  to  school. 

Nicholas  Clare,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Is  a  master  tailor,  lives  at  39?  Townsend-street ;  knows  Lawler 
sixteen  months  ;  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath  ;  witness  belonged 
to  a  reading  society  with  him,  and  one  evening  Paine's  Age  of  Reason 
was  spoke  of ;  Lawler  said  he  would  go  farther  than  Paine,  for  he 
denied  any  part  of  the  Trinity. 

Cross-examined  by  Mi*.  Saurin. 

Does  not  know  who  had  him  admitted,  nor  any  of  the  persons  there, 
but  Lawler  and  Gallan  ;  has  heard  that  the  taking  up  of  the  prisoners 
was  the  cause  of  Gallan's  going  ofi";  witness's  reason  for  not  knowing 


408  TRIALS    OF 

more  of  the  society,  was,  that  he  seldom  went  there  ;  did  not  go  above 
four  times ;  never  saw  any  of  the  persons  accused  of  high  treason, 
until  he  saw  them  in  court ;  believes  he  brought  his  brother  into  the 
society  ;  was  acquainted  with  one  Cox  ;  witness  believes  he  brought 
him  into  the  society  ;  never  knew  that  Lawler  was  called  to  account 
for  any  offence  in  a  court  of  justice  ;  witness  quit  the  society  on 
account  of  Lawler's  conduct,  and  advised  his  brother  to  quit  it. 

John  Clare,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  Lysaght. 

"Was  a  member  of  the  society,  knew  Lawler  and  was  acquainted 
with  his  general  character ;  would  not  believe  him  on  account  of  his 
abandoned  behaviour,  and  denying  a  future  state  ;  would  not  take 
away  the  life  of  a  fly  upon  his  testimony. 

Cross-examined  by  Mi'.  Kells. 

Is  a  tailor,  was  a  member  of  the  society  six  months ;  the  greatest  num- 
ber he  ever  saw  there  was  twenty-four  ;  Gallan,  Atkinson,  Cox,  Burke, 
Lawler,  witness's  brother  were  among  the  number ;  it  was  intended 
for  information  ;  sometimes  they  had  a  law  question  ;  witness  hoped 
to  be  a  magistrate  some  time,  and  liked  a  law  question  ;  they  had  the 
news  of  the  day  also  upon  which  they  used  to  argue  ;  Burke  and 
Lawler  were  for  the  Age  of  Reason  being  introduced  ;  witness  is  a 
married  man,  thirty-six  years  of  age,  never  was  at  such  a  place  till 
about  three  years  ago ;  they  were  to  have  a  French  master  to  teach 
them  French  ;  Lawler's  getting  his  hand  cut  in  a  riot,  was  the  reason 
witness  left  the  society ;  Lawler  was  an  impious  man ;  never  heard 
why  Atkinson  went  to  America,  except  it  was  to  better  himself — 
nor  why  Gallan  went — believes  they  went  together  last  September — 
never  heard  that  counsellor  Barrington  took  Atkinson. 

William  Ebbs,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Is  a  pewterer ;  has  known  Lawler  some  time  ;  he  and  his  wife 
lodged  in  witness's  house  ;  does  not  think  he  is  a  man  to  be  believed 
upon  his  oath  ;  he  is  a  man  of  very  irreligious  principles  ;  worked  on 
Sundays,  and  did  not  go  to  any  place  of  worship. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr  Ruxton. 

Lawler  lodged  some  time  in  witness's  house,  paid  his  rent,  and  was 
an  industrious,  regular  man  ;  did  express  a  concern  at  hearing  he  was 
taken  up,  for  he  was  an  industrious  man  ;  his  wife  was  much  alarmed, 
and  hid  something  in  the  dirt-hole  ;  witness  searched  and  found  two 
bags  of  musket-balls  ;  he  also  found  a  sledge ;  thought  these  must 
have  been  intended  for  some  wicked  purpose,  and  wished  to  get  rid 
of  him  ;  these,  coupled  with  the  other  circumstances,  induce  witness 
not  to  believe  Lawler ;  never  offered  to  go  security  for  him,  but  said 
he  was  an  honest  man. 

John  Robinson,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Lysaght. 

Lawler  served  part  of  his  apprenticeship  to  the  witness — was  a  bad 
boy — that  is  twelve  years  since,  and  witness  could  not  take  upon  him 
now  to  say  whether  he  was  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath. 


THE  DEFENDERS.  409 

Cornelius  Gautier,  one  of  the  jury,  sworn — Examined  by 

Mr.  M'Nally. 

Was  one  of  the  jury  upon  Leary's  trial ;  does  not  recollect  particu- 
larly what  Lawler  swore  upon  that  trial. 

Samuel  Tyndall,  another  of  the  jury,  sworn — Examined  by 

Mr.  Lysaght. 

Was  one  of  the  jury  upon  Leary^s  trial,  recollects  that  Lawler  then 
swore,  that  Mr.  Robinson  had  beaten  him,  for  which  he  ran  away — 
that  was  the  only  reason  as  he  recollects — Lawler  said  he  was  accused 
of  stealing  something  from  Mr.  Robinson. 

Mr.  Lysaght My  lords  and  gentlemen  of  the  jui-y,  it  is  my  duty 

to  place  the  best  shield  I  can  between  the  unfortunate  youth  at  the 
bar,  and  an  ignominious  and  untimely  death,  and  if  my  conception  of 
j  the  laAv  applicable  to  this  case,  be  just,  I  feel  a  strong  hope  of  being 
I  able  to   convince  both  the  court  and  the  jury,  that  the  prisoner  is 
!  guiltless  of  the  crime  with  which  he  stands  charged  ;  I  say  emphati- 
1  cally,  with  which  he  stands  charged  ;  for   should  you,   gentlemen  of 
i  the  jury,  squander  much  credulity  on  the  testimony  that  has  been 
|i  adduced,  still,  if  you  do  not  give  entire  credence  to  the  evidence  of 
Lawler,  the  prisoner,  however  incorrect,  or,   if  you  will  criminal,  if 
his  crime  falls  short  of  high  treason,  you  are   bound  to  acquit.     The 
specific  treasons  charged  against  him  are  the  compassing  and  imagining 
t  the  death  of  the  King,  and  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.     I  shall 
not  deny,  that  an  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  is  a  substantive 
treason,  and  may  be  also  laid  as  an  overt  act,  which  it  unquestion- 
ably is,  of  conspiring  and  imagining  the  death  of  the  King ;  but  I, 
with  respect  to  the  court,  insist  on  it,  that  the  bai-ely  having  in  one's 
possession  without  publication,*  a  paper  containing  favourable  senti- 
ments and  wishes  towards  an  enemy  in  a  distant  country,  without  any 
communication  or  correspondence  whatsoever  with  the  enemy ;  I  say 
such  a  circumstance  cannot,  on  any  principle  of  law,  of  authority,  or 
of  precedent,  that  I  know  ;    I  say  such  a  circumstance  cannot  be 
■  swelled  up  to  the  enormity  of  high  treason.     I  also  contend  for  it, 
and  I  am  supported  by  Hale  and  Foster,  that  a  bare  conspiracy  to 
levy  war  for  lawless  purposes,  short  of  deposing  or  dethroning  the 
I  King,  or  in  any  degree  endangering  his  sacred  life,  is  not  high  treason, 
I  nor  an  overt  act  to  manifest  the  compassing  his  death.f 

Having  said  so  much  on  the  law  of  treason,  so  far  as  it  could  be 
supposed  to  bear  on  the  present  case,  I  shall  have  but  little  to  add  to 
the  observations  which  have  been  so  forcibly  urged  by  Mr.  M'Nally, 
on  the  evidence  of  Lawler,  contaminated  and  damned  as  his  credit 
must  be,  from  his  avowed  perjuries,  intended  assassinations  and 
felonies  ;  so  totally  divested,  as  he  has  been  proved  to  be,  of  that 
sense  of  religion,  without  which  no  man  can  regard  the  sanction  of 
an  oath — it  would,  I  am  confident,  be  a  waste  of  time  to  the  court  to 
argue  that  his  testimony  must  be  thrown  out  of  your  consideration. 
What  then  is  to  affect  the  prisoner's  life — is  it    the    unpublished 

*  Foster,  198,  3d  Edition.         f  Foster,  Discourse  on  Treason,  chapter  2d. 


410  TRIALS    OF 

nonsense  found  on  him  ?  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  as  to  the 
declaration,  the  words  of  it  are,  "  I,  A.  B.  of  my  own  good  will  and 
consent,  do  swear  that  I  will  be  true  to  his  Majesty  King  George  the 
Third,  whilst  I  live  under  the  same  government."  Surely,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  "  while  I  live  under  his  government,"  may  have  been 
understood  by  the  youth  at  the  bar,  to  have  meant  the  duration  of  his 
own  life — there  is  no  inuendo  laid  in  the  indictment  to  eke  out  a 
criminal  construction  of  this  declaration ;  there  is  nothing  necessarily 
to  be  inferred  from  it  in  law,  in  logic,  or  in  reason,  to  charge  the 
prisoner  with  treason,  or  even  with  sedition.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
as  to  the  catechism,  I  own  I  cannot  say  so  much,  but  as  it  was  never 
published  by  the  prisoner,  he  might,  as  Judge  Blackstone  says,  "  keep 
poison  in  his  closet,"  so  that  he  did  not  vend  or  disperse  it.  This 
catechism  may  be  considered  as  seditious;  yet  courts  and  juries  should 
be  cautious,  how  criminal  interpretations  should  be  given  to  words  in 
themselves  dubious.  In  Fleta  it  is  laid  down,  that  formerly  in  appeals 
for  treason,  the  appellant  was  obliged  to  prove  with  the  most  critical 
accuracy  and  perspicuity,  the  words  and  writing  imputed,  their  clear 
meaning  and  import,  beyond  doubt  or  question,  and  if  he  failed  in 
doing  so,  the  appellee  was  discharged  and  cleared  of  the  imputed 
treason.  But,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  hold  in  my  hand  high 
authority  to  shew — authority  not  expressly  stating,  but  by  fair  and 
almost  necessary  implication  admitting,  that  even  the  administering 
unlawful  oaths  and  engagements,  is  not  considered  to  amount  to  high  :, 
treason.  Defenders  now  are  what  White-boys  formerly  were,  and  \ 
the  act  of  the  27  of  the  King,  was  needless  and  nugatory,  if  the  I 
crimes  provided  against  by  it  amounted  to  treason  ;  [here  Mr.  Lysaght  i 
read  extracts  from  the  acts  alluded  to,  to  support  his  argument,]  and  ! 
contended,  that  by  this  statute  he  was  empowered  to  assert  that  the 
King,  Lords  and  Commons  of  Ireland  allowed  impliedly,  that  the  i 
statute  of  treasons  could  not  legally  operate  against  Defenderism. 
But  the  prosecutions  of  the  present  day,  though  for  the  same  offences, 
were  to  vary  from  the  prosecutions  heretofore  carried  on  against 
White-boys  and  Right-boys,  as  they  were  then  called,  and  Defenders 
as  they  are  now  called.  Why  ?  Because  a  general  alarm  was  spread 
through  these  kingdoms,  and  many  good  and  wise  men  were  infected 
with  it.  How  else  account  for  the  late  prosecutions  in  England,  the 
result  of  which  was  the  acquittal  of  all  accused,  and  the  ascertaining 
that  one  of  the  supposed  traitors.  Home  Tooke,  was  a  gentleman  of 
the  soundest  and  most  pure  principles  of  unshaken  patriotism  and 
loyalty !  as  was  manifested  by  the  evidence.  My  lords,  I  ask  what 
precedent  can  be  adduced  to  support  the  position,  that  the  having  a 
paper  of  any  kind  in  one's  possession  without  publication,  can  be  high 
treason  ? 

Hensey  had  sent  forth  his  letter,  it  was  intercepted,  but  it  had 
gone  from  him  with  intent  that  it  should  reach  the  enemy.  Is  there 
in  the  case  before  you,  and  on  which  give  me  leave  to  say  posterity 
will  comment,  is  there  the  shadow  of  evidence  even  from  the  infamous 
and  solitary  witness  Lawler,  that  any  communication  or  corres- 
pondence with  the  enemy  was  had  or  intended  ?  Must  not  the 
intention  be  guilty  ?  Was  Rabelais  put  to  death  for  having — it  is 
too  solemn  an   occasion   to  throw  out  such  allusions,  if  they  be  not 


THE  DEFENDERS.  411 

relevant — was  Rabelais  put  to  death,  even  under  a  despotic  govern- 
ment, for  writing  labels  on  phials  full  of  brick  dust,  "  poison  for  the 
King,  poison  for  the  Queen,"  &c.  No,  because  no  treasonable 
intention  could  be  proved  against  him.  And  will  the  court  and  the 
juiy  in  this  case  say,  without  credible  proof,  that  Eliphismatis,  and 
such  trash  of  enigmatical  or  rather  nonsensical  import — and  certainly 
not  credibly  proved  to  be  of  treasonable  import — is  an  overt  act  of 
adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  ?  Where  are  his  enemies  ?  where  I 
hope  they  ever  shall  be,  distant.  How  did  the  prisoner  adhere  ? 
Did  he  correspond  with,  did  he  send  intelligence  to  ?  Does  the  very 
indictment  charge  that  he  adhered  in  any  manner,  except  to  use  its 
•language,  "  in  case  the  French  should  land."  I  have  heard  of  con- 
structive treasons — here  are  eventual,  contingent  treasons — blundering 
accusation  !  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  will  you  disgrace  your  country 
and  yourselves  ?  I  hope  not — I  have  for  myself  to  lament,  that  I 
have  been  assigned  as  counsel  for  the  prisoner  but  this  day,  in  the 
place  of  that  able  advocate,  Mr.  Curran,  who  could  not  attend  ;  but 
I  confide  in  the  wisdom  and  integrity  of  the  court  and  jury.  Mr. 
Lysaght  concluded  by  conjuring  the  court  not  to  put  too  heavy  a 
weapon  into  the  hands  of  justice,  by  multiplying  treasons ;  and  to  the 
jury,  to  reflect  on  the  infamy  of  Lawler,  and  the  youth  of  the 
prisonei'.  Do  not,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  suffer  your  consciences 
to  be  biassed  by  interest  or  by  prejudice,  or  your  judgment  to  be 
shaken  by  alarm.  Do  not  superstitiously  imagine,  that  the  poor  youth 
at  the  bar  is  so  unhallowed  and  full  of  guilt,  that  the  safety  of  the 
state  vessel  requires  that  he  should  be  thrown  over  and  perish. 

Mr.  Prime- Sekje ANT My  lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it 

is  with  no  small  pain  that  I  rise  upon  this  occasion,  to  perform  the 
disagreeable  task  which  my  duty  requires.  No  man  can  feel  more 
sincere  compassion  than  I  do  for  the  unfortunate  youth  at  the  bar, 
and  no  man  would  feel  more  happy  at  his  being  able  to  establish  his 
innocence  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury.  But,  gentlemen,  justice 
imposes  an  indispensable  duty  upon  me,  and  while  I  am  ready,  with 
the  greatest  candour,  to  allow  the  unhappy  prisoner  every  advantage 
which  the  ingenuity  of  his  counsel  could  suggest  upon  the  facts 
adduced  in  evidence  ;  yet,  gentlemen,  I  must,  in  adverting  to  that 
evidence,  be  obliged  to  shew  it  in  a  very  different  light  indeed,  from 
that  in  which  it  has  been  exhibited  by  the  prisoner's  counsel.  Gen- 
tlemen, I  shall  be  obliged  to  demonstrate  to  you,  that  the  facts  proved 
do  fully  support  the  charge  of  high  treason,  agreeably  to  the  con- 
struction of  the  statutes  of  treasons,  as  laid  down  by  the  learned 
gentleman  who  stated  the  case  on  the  part  of  the  crown.  Much  has 
been  said,  gentlemen,  with  respect  to  the  testimony  of  Lawler ;  it  has 
been  violently  arraigned  by  the  prisonei''s  counsel.  But,  gentlemen, 
I  must  deny  it  is  that  species  of  evidence  which  it  has  been  called  ; 
namely,  the  evidence  of  an  approver,  swearing  to  save  his  own  life — 
for  here,  gentlemen,  no  promise  of  reward  ever  appeared,  or  existed. 
Lawler  had  not  been  apprehended,  he  was  not  in  custody,  he  was  not 
ever  charged  with  any  crime  ;  and  he  appears  to  have  acted  solely 
from  motives  of  compunction.  Gentlemen,  suppose  a  man  had  been 
at  one  period  of  his  life  of  abandoned  or  dissolute  principles,  was  no 
room  ever  to  be  left  for  repentance,   or  amendment  ?     If  the  witness 


412  TRIALS    OF 

had  no  scruples  of  conscience,  by  listening  to  which,  he  hoped  to 
make  some  atonement  to  his  country,  for  the  mischief  he  was  pro- 
moting, by  stopping  its  current  before  it  overwhelmed  the  country ; 
if,  gentlemen,  the  witness  was  afraid  merely  of  personal  mischief, 
he  might  have  withdrawn  from  the  scene  ;  he  was  at  perfect  liberty 
to  do  so.  No  person  accused  him,  he  was  not  even  suspected,  save 
by  his  accomplices ;  he  could  have  fled  to  America  or  elsewhere,  but 
his  testimony  has  been  perfectly  consistent  throughout  the  trial,  as  it  I 
has  been  during  the  former  ones.  What  was  his  account  ?  He  told 
you  he  was  appalled  with  horror  at  hearing  the  real  intention  of  the 
Defenders,  which  he  was  unacquainted  with  before ;  he  therefore 
determined  to  abandon  them,  and  if  possible,  to  prevent  the  com- 
pletion of  their  diabolical  purposes.  He  disclosed  the  matter  to  Mr. 
Cowan,  who  advised  him  to  lodge  informations,  which  he  accordingly 
did ;  and  it  appears  he  did  so  voluntai'ily,  without  any  apprehension 
of  prosecution,  or  promise  of  reward.  Gentlemen,  the  circumstance 
of  being  a  Defender,  is  of  itself  a  strong  impeachment  upon  the  moral 
character  of  a  man.  But  will  it  be  pretended  that  it  altogether 
precludes  his  testimony,  where  he  could  have  had  no  necessity  for 
coming  forward,  no  fear  of  punishment,  no  promise  of  reward,  no 
apparent  object,  but  what  he  told  you  himself,  the  prevention  of 
public  calamity  and  general  mischief.  If  such  testimony  were 
rejected  by  the  law,  the  secrets  of  conspirators  never  could  be  deve- 
loped, particularly,  where  they  had  screened  their  intentions  and 
designs  from  the  prying  eye  of  justice,  by  the  most  solemn  engage- 
ments of  privacy.  Gentlemen,  how  are  such  offenders  to  be  brought 
to  punishment?  You  cannot  expect  that  men  of  I'espeetable  character 
could  be  acquainted  with  such  schemes,  or  able  to  give  evidence  of 
them.  The  law  only  requires  that  the  best  evidence  which  the  case 
admits  of  shall  be  given.  Lawler  was  certainly  a  particeps  criminis 
with  the  rest  of  the  party,  but  when  he  came  acqviainted  with  the 
monstrous  extent  of  their  designs  and  the  diabolical  plans  in  agitation, 
he  became  appalled  with  horror,  and  only  obeyed  the  dictate  of  his 
conscience  in  discovering  the  plot.  Thus,  gentlemen,  he  has  been 
made  the  providential  instrument  of  frustrating  this  diabolical  project, 
which  if  left  undiscovered  for  a  few  weeks  longer,  would  have  pre- 
vented the  possibility  of  a  jury  sitting  in  that  box  this  day,  to  discharge 
the  most  inestimable  privilege  of  our  happy  constitution.  But, 
gentlemen,  it  has  been  said  that  the  testimony  of  Lawler  is  unsup- 
ported— it  is  no  such  thing :  it  has  been  consistent  and  circumstantial, 
as  well  now  as  upon  the  former  trials.  Gentlemen,  his  testimony  is 
uncontradicted — not  a  single  witness  adduced  to  contradict  any  one 
fact  stated  to  have  passed  at  any  of  the  various  meetings,  at  different 
places  and  at  different  times.  He  has  uniformly  told  the  same  story, 
except  as  to  the  design  upon  the  Chancellor,  which  was  bi'ought  out 
upon  the  cross-examination,  and  in  every  point  where  the  magistrates 
and  the  officers  of  justice  have  been  concerned,  his  testimony  is  fully 
corroborated  down  to  the  finding  of  the  same  identical  oath  and 
catechism  in  the  fob  of  the  prisoner.  The  ingenviity  of  the  prisoner's 
counsel  in  the  course  of  a  very  long  cross-examination,  has  not  been 
able  to  warp  the  Avitness  into  the  slightest  prevarication,  and  no 
attempt  has  been  made  to  prove  the  contrary  of  what  he  has  related. 


I  THE    DEFENDERS.  413 

I 

He  has  given  the  prisoner  ample  opportunity  of  doing  that,  if  it  were 
in  his  power,  by  mentioning  the  places  where  they  met — it  has  not 
been  attempted.  But,  gentlemen,  it  is  said  that  Lawler's  testimony 
was  rejected  and  disbelieved  by  a  former  jury.  That,  gentlemen,  I 
cannot  admit  to  be  the  fact ;  for  it  might  be  perfectly  consistent  for 
the  very  same  jury  to  acquit  Leary  upon  the  evidence  given  against 
him  by  Lawler,  and  to  find  the  prisoner  now  at  the  bar  guilty  upon 
the  evidence  of  the  same  witness.  The  jury  in  the  former  case, 
might  have  had  some  doubt,  as  to  the  criminality  of  the  man — it  did 
not  appear  positively,  that  he  was  present  when  any  oath  was  admi- 
nistered, and  if  the  jury  had  any  scruples  in  their  minds,  so  as  not  to 
be  perfectly  satisfied  of  his  guilt,  it  was  their  duty  to  acquit.  But, 
gentlemen,  what  room  is  there  for  doubt  in  the  present  case  ?  The 
actual  administration  of  the  oath  has  been  proved,  and  that  very  same 
oath  has  been  found  in  the  prisoner's  possession. 

Mr.  Prime- Serjeant  then  commented  very  fully  upon  the  facts 

given  in  evidence,  the  treasonable  nature  of  the  oath,  and  the  zealous 

activity  of  the  prisoner,  from  which  he  inferred  that  no  doubt  could 

i  remain  of  his  guilt.     But,  however,  if,  notwithstanding,  they  had  any 

I  reasonable  doubt,  such  as  rational  men  could  entertain,  it  would  be 

I  their  duty  to  acquit  the  prisoner. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,   if  I  felt  the  smallest 
1  difficulty  upon  the  whole  of  the  merits  of  this  case,  in  proceeding  to 
deliver  my  opinion  upon  it  forthwith,  I  would  adjourn  the  court  for 
a  short  time,  or  until  the  next  day,  in  order  to  take  time  to  consider 
:  of  it ;  but,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  feel  any  such  difficulty ;  such  adjourn- 
!  ments  indeed  have  taken  place  in  another  country,  but  it  is  a  precedent 
which,  I  must  confess,   I  do  not  much  approve ;   and   in  presiding 
upon  criminal  trials,  I  will  never,  so  long  as  I  am  able  to  sit,  and  my 
brother  judges  are  able  to  assist  me,   adjourn   the  court  until   the 
i  issue  be  finally  disposed  of.     Gentlemen,  the  indictment  which  you 
are  now  to  try  is  founded  upon  the  statute  of  Edward  III. ;   a  statute 
1  which  has  been  enjoyed  by  the  happy  Constitution  of  these  reahns  for 
f  seven  hundred  years,  and  which,  for  one  hundred  years  past,  it  has 
[!  not  been  necessary  to  call  into  execution  in  this  kingdom.     Gentlemen, 
i  it  may  be  necessary  to  state  to  you  what  the  accusation  is  not,  in  order 
!  to  disembarrass  your  minds  from  the  represent  tion  of  counsel.     This, 
[  gentlemen,  is  not  a  charge  of  felony,  under  the  White-boy  Act, — it  is 
I  not  a  charge  for  levying  war  to  pull  down  enclosures — it  is  not  a 
charge  against  the  prisoner  for  having  in  his  possession  unpublished 
I  papers — it  was  not  a  charge  for  a  tumultuous  rising,  or  of  merely 
;  assembling  with  Defenders  to  commit  robbery  or  burglary — it  is  not 
a  charge  of  merely  taking,  or  administering  illegal  oaths ;  but,  gentle- 
men, it  is  an  indictment  of  high  treason,  founded  in  the  statute  of 
Edward  III.,  and  it  charges  the  prisoner  with  associating  himself  with 
divers  false  traitors,  styling  themselves  Defenders,  and  combining  and 
conspiring  with  them  to  aid  and  assist  the  persons  exercising  the 
powers  of  government  in  France,  at  open  war  with  the  King,  for  the 
purpose  of  overturning,  by  force,  the    King's   government  in  this 
country,  in  Church  and  State,  thereby  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies, 
and  compassing  and  imagining  the  King's  death.     For,  gentlemen,  it 
has  been  truly  stated  by  the  learned  officer  of  the  crown  who  opened 


414  TRIALS    OF 

the  case  for  the  prosecution,  that  any  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies 
at  open  war  with  his  Majesty,  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  or  assisting 
them  against  his  Majesty,  necessarily,  in  its  obvious  consequences, 
involves  the  safety  of  the  King's  life  and  the  existence  of  his  govern- 
ment. Consequently,  gentlemen,  he  who  is  guilty  of  the  one,  is,  by 
necessaxy  implication,  guilty  of  the  other.  Therefore,  gentlemen,  it 
is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  direct  attack  upon  the  King's 
person,  or  an  actual  levy  of  troops  to  carry  on  rebellion,  in  order  to 
support  this  indictment ;  for  if  a  combination,  or  conspiracy  for  the 
purpose,  existed  amongst  his  Majesty's  subjects,  and  if  it  can  be 
established  by  overt  acts  committed  by  them,  the  charge  will  be  thereby 
as  fully  substantiated  as  much  as  if  the  most  malicious  purpose  of  such 
a  conspiracy  had  been  perpetrated  and  completed.  Gentlemen,  the 
safety  of  the  State  and  the  Constitution  itself  is  inseparably  connected 
with  the  safety  of  the  King,  who  is  the  first  soldier  and  the  first 
magistrate  of  tlie  State,  and  therefore  the  law,  wisely  considering  the 
importance  of  his  invaluable  life  to  the  peace  and  existence  of  society, 
has  guarded  even  the  most  distant  approaches  towards  the  safety  of 
that  life  with  the  most  scrupulous  caution  ;  for  gentlemen,  this  is  the 
only  instance  in  which  the  policy  of  our  laws  takes  the  intention  of 
guilt,  manifested  by  plain,  unequivocal  overt  acts,  as  adequate  to  the 
completion  of  the  crime,  and  inflicts  the  punishment  accordingly  for 
such  criminal  intention.  Gentlemen,  having  thus  stated  the  law 
arising  upon  the  case,  as  far  as  it  occurs  to  me  to  be  necessary,  I  shall 
next  proceed  to  consider  the  charges  stated  in  this  indictment,  and  the 
evidence  which  has  been  adduced  in  support  of  them. 

[Here  his  lordship  stated  the  overt  acts  enumerated  in  the  indict- 
ment, and  then  I'ecapitulated,  from  his  notes,  the  whole  of  the  evidence.] 

His  lordship  afterwards  stated  it  as  his  opinion,  that  all  the  circum- 
stances separately  and  collectively  considered,  showed  that  a  connection 
with  and  adherence  to  the  French  Convention  was  the  unquestionable 
purpose  of  Defenderism,  for  the  end  of  assisting  the  French  in  any 
invasion  of  this  country,  and  overturning  the  government  of  it ;  and 
the  guilt  of  these  designs,  if  the  jury  believed  the  testimony  of  Lawler, 
was  clearly  brought  home  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  Gentlemen,  the 
next  object  for  your  consideration  will  be  the  evidence  of  that  witness. 
How  does  it  appear  ?  Certainly,  not  as  that  of  an  approver,  as^has  been 
represented  by  the  counsel ;  he  stands  upon  very  difi*erent  grounds. 
An  approver,  gentlemen,  is  a  man  who,  upon  being  apprehended  and 
charged  with  a  crime,  was  encoviraged  by  the  offer  of  a  pardon  to 
disclose  his  crime  and  prosecute  his  accomplices.  Gentlemen,  is  that 
the  case  of  Lawler?  Certainly  not.  Was  he  apprehended  upon  a 
charge  of  any  crime  ?  No.  Was  he  offered  a  pardon  ?  No.  Did 
he  prosecute  his  accomplices  out  of  a  necessity  to  save  his  own  life  ? 
No.  Was  there  anything  to  prevent  his  escape  from  justice  if  he 
chose  it  without  making  any  discovery  ?  No.  Had  he  any  malice 
to  the  prisoner  ?  Was  there  any  dispute  between  them  ?  Nothing 
of  the  kind  was  attempted  to  be  proved.  The  testimony  of  the  witness 
throughout  Avas  clear,  collected,  and  consistent,  without  any  prevari- 
cation. It  was  circumstantially  supported  by  the  testimony  of 
Alderman  James  and  Mr.  Carleton,  and  so  far  fi-om  being  contradict- 
ed by  the  evidence  examined,  on   the  part  of  the  prisoner,  it  was 


THE  DEFENDERS. 


415 


strengthened  in  several  respects.  So  far  as  the  evidence  for  the  prisoner 
went,  it  exactly  tallied  and  indented  with  the  account  given  by  Lawler, 
but  what  amounted  to  very  strong  presumptive  pi-oof,  in  support  of 
Lawler,  was,  that  notwithstanding  the  various  meetings  particularized 
by  him  at  Plunket-street,  at  Drury-lane,  at  Stoneybatter,  at  Cork- 
street,  not  a  single  tittle  of  evidence  appeared  to  show  that  the  prisoner 
was  not  at  any  of  those  meetings ;  nor  did  any  of  those  persons  stated 
to  have  been  present  at  those  meetings  with  the  prisoner  and  Lawler 
appear  to  contradict  him.  So  that,  gentlemen,  comparing  the  whole 
of  Lawler's  evidence  with  all  the  other  evidence  which  appeared  in 
the  course  of  the  trial,  they  indented  with  each  other  so  closely  and 
consistently,  without  anything  to  contradict  them,  that  if  you  believe 
the  evidence,  you  cannot  hesitate  to  conclude  that  the  indictment  has 

'  been  fully  substantiated.  Gentlemen,  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner 
have  endeavoured  to  excite  your  humanity  in  favour  of  the  prisoner's 

(  youth.  Humanity,  no  doubt,  is  a  commendable  virtue ;  but,  gentlemen, 
the  attribute  of  mercy  belongs  not  to  a  jury,  when  justice  requires  a 

t  verdict  upon  your  oaths,  according  to  the  evidence.  If  the  youth  of 
a  criminal  were  to  warrant  a  jury  in  finding  a  verdict  against  evidence 
the  most  desperate  conspirators  against  a  state  will  have  nothing  more 

;  to  do  than  engage  the  boys  of  a  country  in  their  plots,  and  if  they 
be  detected  before  the  accomplishment  of  their  purpose,  the  humanity 
of  a  jury  is  to  intervene,  and  to  screen  them  from  public  justice. 
Gentlemen,  there  is  an  instance  in  the  conduct  of  the  great  Judge 

i  Foster,  who  was  styled  an  humane  judge,  worthy  of  your  attention. 
A  boy  of  only  seven  years  old  was  tried  before  that  judge  for  murder. 

[  It  appeared  that  the  boy  had  been  entrusted  with  the  care  of  a  child 
somewhat  younger  than  himself,  and  upon  a  quarrel  arising,  he  had 

;  killed  the  child  ;  sensible  of  his  crime,  and  apprehensive  of  detection 
and  punishment,  he  concealed  the  body  in  a  dung-hill.  vSome  sus- 
picions arising  from  the  account  he  gave  respecting  the  child,  the  boy 
was  locked  up  in  a  room  until  he  should  tell  the  truth  :  at  the  end  of  two 
days  he  acknowledged  the  murder,  and  discovered  where  he  had  hid 
the  body.  He  was  tried,  and  his  years  were  urged  in  his  defence. 
He  was  certainly  of  very  tender  years ;  but  the  learned  judge  observed 
that  his  hiding  the  body,  and  his  prevarication  in  the  account  he  gave, 
all  marked  his  sense  of  the  wickedness  of  the  crime.  The  jury  con- 
victed him — ^he  was  not  indeed  executed,  but  respited  from  time  to 
time,  until  at  length  he  died  in  prison.  Now,  gentlemen,  if,  in  the 
present  case,  you  believe  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  so  young  or 
so  silly  as  not  to  understand  what  he  was  about*  in  the  proceedings 
charged  and  proved  against  him  ;  or  that  he  was  cajoled  or  enticed  to 
swear  oaths,  and  administer  them  to  others,  and  to  attend  meetings  of 
Defenders,  for  the  purpose  of  seizing  arms  to  assist  the  French,  and 
all  this  through  mere  simplicity,  inadvertence,  or  ignorance  of  the 
guilt ;  there,  to  be  sure,  his  youth  would  deserve  consideration.  But 
this  is  scarcely  possible  to  conceive.  You  must,  therefore,  gentlemen, 
throw  all  false  and  partial  considerations  out  of  your  mind — you  must 
arm  your  judgments  with  manly  feelings,  and  if  you  have  no  doubt, 
such  as  rational  men  may  entertain,  you  will  do  your  duty  like  con- 
scientious men,  and  find  the  prisoner  guilty.  But,  if  on  the  contrary, 
you  should  entertain  such  a  reasonable  doubt,  it  will  be  of  course  your 


416  TRIALS    OF 

duty  to  acquit  him.  The  verdict  will  be  yours,  not  that  of  the  court, 
and  upon  your  consciences  it  will  rest. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain,  and  Mr.  Baron  George  declined  adding 
any  observations  to  the  jury. 

About  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  the  23d,  the  jury  retired,  and 
after  deliberating  for  twenty  minntes,  brought  in  a  verdict  of  Guilty  ; 
but  recommended  the  prisoner  as  an  object  of  mercy,  on  account  of 
his  youth. 

The  court  then  adjourned  to  ten  o'clock  on  Wednesday  morning. 

Wednesday,  Februaiy  24. 

Patrick  Hart  was  this  day  put  upon  his  trial,  upon  an  indictment 
similar  to  that  which  is  set  forth  in  the  case  of  Thomas  Kennedy,  and 
therefore  it  is  thought  unnecessary  to  state  it  particularly. 

The  following  Jury  were  sworn, 

Nathaniel  Trumbull,  jun.,  Francis  Kirkpatrick, 

William  French,  Thomas  Black, 

William  Lancake,  George  Simpson, 

Thomas  White,  Matthew  Nixon, 

George  Pillsworth,  J.  Hawthorn  Grier, 

John  Ferns,  John  Thompson.* 

Mr.  Solicitor-General. — My  lords  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
though  called  on  at  the  instant  to  state  this  case,  I  will  not  make  an 
idle  affectation  of  being  unprepared.  Instead  of  forgetting  at  this 
time,  so  soon  after  the  late  trials  on  the  same  subject,  I  doubt,  whether  I 
ever  shall  forget  the  important  facts  which  this  trial,  like  the  former, 
will  produce.  They  are  not  novel  to  me,  though  they  must  again  be 
explained  to  you — but  conscious  as  I  am  of  the  extreme  fatigue  which 
your  lordships  ha\e  already  undergone,  I  shall  endeavour  to  bring 
the  case  within  as  narrow  a  compass  as  possible.  It  is  very  likely, 
gentlemen,  that  you  may  have  heard  a  great  deal  before  you  came 
into  the  box,  but  I  will  caution  you,  not  to  suffer  your  minds  to  be 
influenced  by  anything  but  what  shall  appear  on  the  pi^esent  trial  in 
evidence  upon  the  several  charges  in  this  veiy  serious  accusation 
against  the  prisoner.  Gentlemen,  the  indictment  is  of  considerable 
length.  It  has  been  deliberately  and  correctly  read  by  the  officer. 
Therefore,  it  is  only  necessary  for  me,  in  order  to  direct  your  attention, 
to  state,  that  notwithstanding  the  length  of  the  charge  and  the  diffi- 
culty that  might  apparently  be  attendant  upon  an  investigation  of  an 
indictment  of  such  long  and  complicated  formation,  the  case  may  be 

*  In  swearing  the  jury,  several  challenges  were  taken  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner, 
for  want  of  freehold.  Some  doubt  was  entertained,  whether  this  was  a  good 
cause  of  challenge  in  the  city  of  Dublin.  The  Attorney-General  declined  making 
any  point,  or  arguing  the  objection,  and  the  court  directed  the  persons  challenged 
to  be  sworn,  to  answer  whether  they  had  freeholds  in  the  city,  and  such  as 
answered  in  the  negative,  were  not  sworn  upon  the  jury.  By  the  3  and  4  William 
IV.  c.  91,  s.  20,  it  is  specially  provided  that  if  a  person  be  otherwise  qualified 
according  to  the  requisitions  of  the  Act,  want  of  freehold  shall  not  be  accepted 
as  good  cause  of  challenge  either  by  the  crown  or  by  the  party,  nor  as  a  cause 
for  discharging  the  man  so  returned  upon  his  own  application. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  417 

simplified  to  two  charges,  which,  if  proved,  will  bear  upon  tlie 
prisoner.  Gentlemen,  under  that  remarkable  statute  of  25  Eldward 
I  the  Third  called  the  Statute  of  Treasons,  which  although  it  has  been 
'  acted  upon  for  many  centuries  in  England,  has  not  been  brought 
into  familiar  notice  in  this  country,  till  modern  times — I  say 
under  that  statute  of  Edward  the  Third,  we  are  now  regvilated, 
not  only  in  framing  the  accusation  in  cases  like  the  present,  but  we 
are  directed  in  the  course  of  evidence  necessary  to  bring  home  guilt 
to  the  party  accused  under  that  statute,  and  by  cases  solemnly  ad- 
judged upon  trials  of  a  similar  nature.  True  it  is,  gentlemen, 
that  the  crime  of  which  the  prisoner  stands  charged,  is  peculiar  in  its 
nature,  and  different  from  other  crimes  known  to  the  law,  because 
under  the  statute  which  I  have  mentioned,  the  bare  imagining-,  and 
intending  of  such  crime  as  is  alluded  to,  is  the  completion  of  the  crime, 
if  that  intent  be  manifested  by  overt  acts  laid  in  the  indictment,  and 
sufficiently  established  by  evidence  Avithin  the  statute.  Gentlemen, 
it  is  unnecessaiy  for  me  to  labour  the  point  to  shew  you,  with 
reference  to  a  person  charged  with  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies, 
that  if  the  person  so  accused  can  be  shewn  to  have  seconded  the 
endeavour  of  the  King's  enemies,  at  open  war  with  the  King,  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  have  invited  them  to  invade  the  kingdom,  to 
have  associated  with  others,  and  enlisted  men  to  raise  an  armed 
force,  to  second  the  invaders  when  they  should  arrive,  he  is  manifestly 
guilty  of  such  adhering.  It  is  settled  law,  that  such  a  case  will  not 
only  go  to  establish  the  treason  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies, 
but  will  in  its  consequence  go  to  prove  the  other  charge  of  compassing 
the  King's  death ;  because  the  enemies  of  the  King  being  invited  to 
invade  the  kingdom  with  an  armed  force,  and  a  force  being  raised 
1  here  with  a  view  of  forwarding  their  purposes,  to  dethrone  the  King 
land  overturn  his  government,  that  necessai'ily  calls  after  it  the 
I  death  of  the  King,  vmder  whose  auspices,  as  head  of  the  state,  and  as 
supreme  executive  magistrate,  this  constitution  and  government  is 
preserved,  and  we  possess  and  enjoy  our  liberties  and  existence.  So 
much,  I  should  hope,  will  be  enough,  as  to  the  general  heads  of  the 
accusation.  But  in  order  to  establish  those  general  heads  of  accusa- 
!  tion,  it  has  been  necessary  also  to  lay  certain  overt  acts — eight  of  which 
are  set  forth  in  the  indictment,  in  order  to  bring  home  guilt  to  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar.  Of  these  overt  acts,  gentlemen,  the  one  to  which 
I  shall  direct  your  attention  in  the  first  instance,  is  that  of  associating 
with  a  body  of  men  called  Defenders — confederated  together  with  an 
armed  force  to  second  the  invasion  of  the  French,  at  open  war  with 
the  King  ;  and  in  case  they  should  invade  this  kingdom,  to  forward 
their  attempts  in  overturning  the  established  government  of  the 
country.  Another  distinct  overt  act  is  that  of  enlisting  certain 
I)ersons  to  promote  that  first  purpose  I  have  mentioned,  and  is  a 
necessary  corollary  to  it,  by  which  leading  primary  intention,  both 
are  connected  and  combined  for  the  purpose  stated  in  the  indictment. 
Another  ovei't  act  to  which  I  shall  direct  your  attention,  is  that  of 
administering  an  oath,  which  oath,  together  with  a  catechism  (for  I 
take  them  together  as  one  instrument)  upon  the  face  of  them,  shew, 
that  the  other  purposes  and  overt  acts  which  I  alluded  to,  will  rest 
not  merely  upon  parol  testimony,  but  will  be  established  by  written 

2   E 


418  TRIALS  OF 

and  irrefragable  proof,  so  as  to  give  demonstrable  certainty  of  the 
great  feature  of  the  case,  the  decided  existence  of  a  foul,  horrible 
treason,  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  your  enquiry.  Gentlemen,  it 
will  establish  this  fact  beyond  controversy,  in  the  first  instance,  namely, , 
that  the  treason  did  exist ;  and  secondly,  that  the  prisoner  participated, , 
and  was  an  active  sharer  in  the  guilt.  You  are  aware,  gentlemen, 
that  in  taking  this  line,  I  am  shortening  the  course  of  your  investi-- 
gation,  in  order  that  your  attention  may  be  compressed  as  much  as  ■ 
possible  to  this  point,  to  which  the  evidence  is  immediately  applicable. 
I  come  now,  gentlemen,  to  another  part  of  the  case,  and  that  which  i 
falls  more  immediately  within  your  province  to  investigate,  and  decide 
upon — I  mean  the  nature  of  the  evidence  which  will  be  brought  for- 
ward to  establish  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bai\  Gentlemen,  it 
will  appear  to  you,  that  this  infatuated  and  deluded  man,  and  if  I  am 
rightly  instructed,  that  unfortunately  wicked  person  at  the  bar,  had  . 
his  mind  so  heated,  so  perverted,  so  contaminated  by  the  treasonable 
pursuits  in  which  he  was  engaged,  that  he  had  confederated  himself  I' 
with  that  body  of  men  called  Defenders,  who  have  infested  this 
country  for  four  or  five  years  past,  under  that  particular  denomination 
which  has  brought  shame  and  disgrace  upon  this  kingdom — so  that 
nothing  but  the  wholesome  administration  of  jixstice,  can  induce  any 
man  to  reside  here,  or  ever  make  you  worthy  again  to  invite  strangers 
to  hold  commercial  connexion  with  you,  by  giving  stability  to  your 
credit  or  security,  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  sweets  of  honest  industry. 
I  understand  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  nearly  connected  with  people 
of  business  in  this  metropolis,  and  has  been  bred  up  to  the  trade  of  a 
skinner.  It  will  be  proved  that  within  this,  your  metropolis,  there 
have  existed  within  this  short  time  past,  a  number  of  societies  all 
co-operative  to  one  abominable  mischief ;  who,  through  their  ditFerent 
gradations  of  guilt,  at  last  concentred  the  carrying  into  execution 
their  wicked  and  traitorous  intentions  in  that  body  of  men  called 
Defenders,  of  whom  the  prisoner  was  one — not  a  passive  member 
submitting  to  the  directions  of  others,  but  taking  that  leading,  decisive 
and  commanding  part  which  belongs  to  a  committee-man,  and  a  leader 
in  their  discipline  and  counsels — an  office  Avhich  he  held  under  the 
treasonable  sanction  of  his  engagements,  formed  upon  the  systematic 
plan  of  these  societies,  confederated  for  purposes  the  most  horrid,  and 
most  formidable  to  the  safety  of  the  community.  It  will  appear  \hat 
this  body  of  men,  under  the  combined  efforts  of  the  malignant  inter- 
vention of  foreign  missionaries — of  domestic  disaftected  men — of^the 
industrious  assiduity  of  persons  engaged  for  some  years  past  in  attempts 
to  overturn  the  state,  and  to  bring  destruction  upon  those  men  who 
wish  well  to  the  good  order  and  law  of  the  country.  This  unfortunate 
man  at  the  bar  having  embarked  in  the  guilty  purposes,  and  heated 
and  infiamed  with  all  the  abominable  miscliief  growing  out  of  the 
circumstances  I  have  mentioned,  exerted  himself  with  such  activity,  as 
to  be  entitled  to  that  denomination  I  have  stated — that  of  a  committee- 
man. It  will  appear  that  these  persons  called  Defenders,  of  whose 
confederation  you  will  have  decisive  evidence  from  the  oath  and  the 
catechism,  could  have  nothing  else  in  view  than  the  object  of  embody- 
ing with  France,  and  to  deluge  the  country  with  blood  and  confusion. 
The  oath  and  the  catechism  specially  pi-ove  it.     The  association  met 


THE  DEFENDERS.  419 

at  several  places,  they  enlisted  men  under  the  perverted  sanction  of  a 
sacred  oath — appealing  to  God,  and  binding  themselves  by  an  engage- 
ment, they  laboured  most  assiduously  to  increase  their  numbers — they 
met  in  several  places — they  had  their  assemblies,  their  laws,  their 
courts-martial,  and  their  committee-men — subscriptions  of  money — 
arms  provided  by  plunder — and  by  those  means  endeavouring  to  carry 
into  eifect  their  guilty  purposes,  so  as  not  to  leave  the  possibility  of  a 
doubt  upon  your  minds  as  to  the  general  intent.  The  prisoner  Hart, 
appears  to  have  had  more  than  a  common  share,  even  as  a  leader  and 
committee-man.  The  Avitness  who  will  be  brought  forward  to  support 
this  charge,  has  been  already  examined  in  the  course  of  several  trials. 
The  same  witness  upon  whose  testimony  the  case  will  principally 
turn,  will  be  now  brought  forward,  and  will  prove  the  numerous 
meetings  at  which  Hart  attended — that  he  appeared  at  the  head  of 
some  of  them  as  an  authoritative  person,  announcing  to  the  whole 
body,  what  the  guilty  purpose  was.  At  some  meetings  powder  and 
ammunition  were  provided.  Hart  will  appear  to  have  been  an  active 
man  in  swearing  individuals,  one  of  whom  was  reluctant,  until  he 
heard  the  purpose  of  the  engagement.  The  meeting  at  which  that 
transaction  took  place  was  at  Stoneybatter,  and  there  a  person  was 
brought  in  to  be  sworn — Hart  was  presiding  as  a  committee-man. 
He  told  the  novitiate  that  the  object  of  engagement  was  to  aid  the 
French  when  they  would  land,  and  for  that  purpose  they  were  to 
plunder  the  country  of  arms  to  be  prepared  for  their  arrival — ^you  are, 
said  Hart,  to  obey  all  the  mandates  of  the  committee,  and  to  be  con- 
federated with  us  upon  oath — which  oath  he  accordingly  administered. 
Gentlemen,  at  that  very  meeting  at  Stoneybatter,  an  engagement  was 
entered  into,  upon  a  difficulty  appearing  whether  they  were  sufficiently 
armed  to  go  out  and  plunder.  "  You  must  go  back,"  said  he,  "  and 
fetch  your  arms."  Then  a  delay  took  place,  some  did  not  return,  and 
it  appearing  there  was  not  a  sufficient  number  attending.  Hart  called 
upon  those  who  were  in  the  room,  and  desired  them  to  lay  their  hands 
upon  the  table,  and  swear  by  their  solemn  engagement  to  attend 
the  next  night,  to  be  fully  armed  for  the  purjiose  of  plundering  the 
houses  of  the  peaceable  inhabitants  in  the  confines  of  Dublin.  It  has 
appeared,  that  upon  that  very  night  when  the  confederation  was 
entered  into,  a  robbery  was  committed  at  a  neighbouring  house,  which 
was  plundered  of  arms,  and  those  arms  were  found  in  the  possession 
of  Hart,  when  he  was  taken  up.  Those  arms  wei"e  plundered  for  the 
pui'pose  of  assisting  the  French,  when  they  should  land.  Gentlemen, 
there  is  another  alarming  circumstance,  which  will  come  out  in  proof, 
and  therefore  I  state  it,  though  I  wish  to  be  relieved  from  the  pain 
of  it.  It  is  so  horrible  in  its  nature,  that  we  do  not  wish  to  impute 
it  to  the  body  of  the  Catholic  persuasion  ;  but  there  have  been  men 
abandoned  enough  to  inflame  and  exasperate  religious  prejudices,  and 
that  wicked  principle  is  imputable  to  the  prisoner,  who  out  of  his  own 
mouth  must  be  judged.  It  will  appear,  gentlemen,  that  at  one  meeting 
of  Defenders,  associated  for  the  serious  purpose  of  enlisting,  embodying 
and  becoming  formidable  by  militaiy  array,  a  conversation  arose,in  which 
the  witness  wanted  to  know  all  the  purposes  of  the  association,  which 
Hart,  as  a  confidential  committee-man,  avowed  himself  entrusted  with 
— upon  that  occasion  Hart  told  the  witness,  "  our  intention  is  to  get 


420  TRIALS    OF 

arms  from  those  who  have  them,  and  after  we  are  thoroughly  prepared, 
to  massacre  and  put  to  death  the  Protestants  of  the  country."  Here 
he  avowed  the  horrid  scheme.  Gentlemen,  I  have  thought  much 
upon  this  subject,  and  I  cannot  bring  my  mind  to  suppose,  that  so 
atrocious  a  malignity  could  exist  in  the  minds  of  any  body  of  men,  as 
a  deliberate  purpose  of  murdering  their  Protestant  bi'ethren,  and  at 
this  time,  when  we  are  receiving  with  open  arms,  by  every  act  of 
kindness  and  participation  of  benefit,  the  whole  of  our  Roman  Catholic 
fellow  Christians  ;  yet,  some  there  are,  who  would  make  religious 
enthusiasm  an  excuse  for  the  foulest  crimes,  with  that  horrid  malignity 
with  which  Hart's  mind  was  inflamed  and  was  full.  Much  industry 
has  been  used  to  pei-suade  the  bigotted  and  uninformed  Roman 
Catholic,  that  his  situation  is  such  as  calls  for  outrage  as  justifiable, 
because  that  he  cannot  accomplish  abolition  of  tithes  and  reform  in 
parliament :  but  there  is  no  sensible  Roman  Catholic  that  must  not 
be  convinced  that  he  is  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  every  blessing  Avhich 
the  constitution  can  give  ;  and  that  it  is  high  time  to  teach  the  con- 
spirators against  that  constitution,  that  every  honest  man  of  every 
religious  persuasion,  joins  to  suppress  that  spirit  of  delinquency  and 
outrage.  Gentlemen,  I  shall  now  state  the  papers  very  shortly, 
which  were  found  on  the  prisoner,  and  which  speak  trumpet-tongued 
to  your  understandings.  The  evidence,  if  established,  is  in  its  nature, 
not  fallible  ;  it  consists  of  written  documents,  found  in  the  possession 
of  the  prisoner,  and  are  not  subject  to  those  objections  imputable  to 
evidence  of  another  kind,  where  the  fallibility  of  memory  could 
deceive. 

One  of  these  papers  begins  in  these  words,  "  I  do  swear  that  I  will 
be  true  and  faithful  to  the  present  United  States  of  F.  and  I.  and 
every  other  kingdom  now  in  Christianity,  as  far  as  in  my  power  lies, 
without  hurting  my  soul  or  body,  as  long  as  they  prove  so  to  me." 
Then  it  goes  on,  "  And  more  I  do  swear,  that  I  will  be  true  to  my 
committee  and  brothers,  that  is  to  say,  in  supporting  the  right  and 
privileges  of  the  United  States  of  the  kingdom,  now  in  brotherhood." 
"  More,  I  swear,  that  I  will  not  come  as  an  evidence  against  any  of 
my  brothers,  in  any  cause  whatsoever,  except  on  a  court-martial,  held 
by  our  committees  on  pain  of  exclusion,  or  death  whichsomever  is 
deserving."  The  dreadful  tendency  of  those  engagements  will  be 
matter  for  your  consideration.  These  papers  were  found  in  the  pri- 
soner's box — in  another  box  was  found  a  blunderbuss,  and  several 
rounds  of  ball  cartridge,  so  that  he  appears  to  have  had  arms  in  one 
box,  dangerous  papers  in  another,  and  treason  in  his  heart.  Gentle- 
men, you  will  consider  the  whole  of  this  case,  and  if  there  be  a  hinge 
left  to  hang  a  doubt  on,  I  join  in  the  recommendation  to  acquit  the 
prisoner.  If  you  find  Lawler,  the  witness,  trip  or  equivocate  in  any 
one  point  or  circumstance,  you  should  never  find  the  party  accused 
guilty.  But,  gentlemen,  if  you  find  the  witness  perfectly  consistent, 
and  if  the  learned  counsel,  whose  duty  it  may  be  to  cross-examine 
him,  cannot,  under  all  the  advantages  of  former  disquisition  involve 
him  in  inconsistency,  and  if  he  shall  be  supported,  as  I  am  bold  to  say 
he  will  be,  by  a  train  of  corroborating  facts  which  could  not  exist 
were  not  the  principal  charges  well  founded,  it  then  only  remains  for 
you  to  perform  that  duty  which  your  country  has  a  right  to  demand 


THE    DEFENDERS.  421 

at  your  hands,  and  I  trust  that  no  consideration  will  warp  you  from 
the  important  obligation  which  you  are  bound  by  your  oaths  and  on 
your  consciences  to  discharge. 

William  Lawler,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Kell's. 

The  general  tenor  of  the  witness's  testimony  being  the  same  as  upon 
the  former  cases,  it  is  omitted,  to  avoid  repetition.  The  additional 
matter  was  the  private  conversation  with  Hai't,  the  prisoner,  which  was 
inadmissible  evidence,  as  against  the  former  prisoners. 

He  said,  he  met  the  prisoner  at  Nowlan's,  in  Druiy-lane  ;  it  was 
on  Sunday  the  23d  of  August,  after  the  meeting  at  Stoneybatter  ;  it 
was  a  society  of  Defenders  ;  there  were  more  than  twelve  at  the 
meeting  ;  it  was  about  seven  in  the  evening.  The  prisoner  asked 
witness  if  Coffey  and  Dry  were  not  Protestants — witness  answered, 
he  believed  they  were  ;  the  prisoner  said  he  would  not  sit  in  company 
with  them ;  the  reason  the  prisoner  asked  him  was  because  he  was 
acqviainted  with  them  both.  The  prisoner  asked  witness  what  religion 
he  was  of  ? — witness  answered  he  was  a  Roman  ;  the  reason  he  said 
so  was,  because  Brady  told  him  when  he  went  to  be  sworn,  to  say  he 
was  a  Roman,  for  that  they  had  an  objection  to  admit  Protestants. 
Witness  asked  the  prisoner  his  reason  for  asking  the  question  so  many 
times  ;  prisoner  said  because  he  would  not  sit  in  company  with  a 
Protestant.  That  the  night  before,  the  Defenders  were  to  have  risen, 
but  on  account  of  the  harvest  not  being  got  it,  it  was  deferred  ;  for  if 
the  harvest  should  be  destroyed,  they  would  be  starved,  but  as  soon 
as  it  was  got  in,  they  would  rise  upon  the  Protestants,  and  put  them 
to  death,  and  that  the  forts  would  be  attacked  at  the  same  time  ;  he 
meant  by  the  forts,  the  different  garrisons  in  Ireland.  The  prisoner 
said  he  would  call  a  committee  of  twelve  men,  and  that  Lockington 
should  be  made  a  prisoner,  and  they  Avould  then  consult  what  death 
they  would  put  him  to,  for  having  brought  Protestants  among  them ; 
the  prisoner  was  then  called  to  order  by  Coffey,  who  was  in  the  chair  ; 
Coffey  wanted  to  know  what  number  of  Defenders  there  were  in 
Dublin,  that  they  might  be  officered  ;  the  reason  the  prisoner  and  the 
witness  were  called  to  order,  was  because  they  were  from  the  table, 
and  at  the  window ;  witness  met  the  prisoner  on  the  following  day 
in  the  Liberty,  there  was  a  young  man  with  him,  who  the  prisoner 
said  was  a  Defender ;  he  shook  hands  with  the  witness  and  pressed 
witness's  hand  with  his  thumb,  which  was  a  sign  that  he  was  a 
Defender  ;  the  pinsoner  asked  witness  if  he  had  any  ball  at  home,  or 
if  he  knew  how  to  make  ball  cartridges  ;  told  him  he  did,  and  that 
he  had  ball  at  home  ;  prisoner  gave  witness  some  gunpowder,  about 
half  a  pound,  and  desired  him  to  make  cartridges,  and  let  him  have 
them  in  the  evening  ;  witness  asked  the  prisoner  if  there  were  four 
hundred  Defenders  in  Dublin ;  he  said  there  were  four  thousand  if 
they  were  got  together  ;  they  then  separated,  and  witness  went  to 
Dry's  in  Cork-street. 

The  oath  and  catechism  found  upon  Kennedy  were  read,  after 
which  the  witness  said,  he  wished  to  mention  something  to  the  court. 
One  of  the  witnesses,  said  he,  who  appeared  on  the  last  trial,  was  the 
man  who  lent  me  the  case  of  pistols  Avhen  I  went  to  the  watch-house, 
and  when  I  went  to  Stoneybatter. 


422  TKIALb   OF 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — What  is  the  name  of  that  man  ?     A.  Gallan, 
of  Crane-lane.     He  lent  me  a  pistol  when  I  went  to  Stoneybatter. 
Q.  Who  has  that  pistol  now  ?     A.  It  can  be  got  by  sending  for  it. 
Whereupon  the  pistol  was  sent  for. 

Cross-examined  by  JSIr.  Lysaght. 

Witness  saw  another  person  who  came  to  discredit  his  testimony, 
who  did  not  lend  him  a  pistol ;  could  not  say  anything  of  the  man ; 
his  wife  told  him  he  was  the  person  who  melted  down  the  bullets ;  could 
not  say  Mr.  Robinson  was  a  good  man ;  he  used  witness  more  like  a 
servant  than  anything  else  ;  was  not  taken  by  him  through  charity ; 
last  saw  his  father  in  England,  his  father  was  not  a  member  of  any 
of  the  Corresponding  Societies ;  witness  had  been  frequently  in 
company  Avith  the  prisoner.  It  was  said  at  Hoey's-court,  when  they 
should  rise,  that  the  first  persons  they  should  put  to  death  would  be 
Jackson's  juiy.  There  was  a  society  met  at  witness's  room,  and  at 
Gallan's  ;  Strephon  and  witness  were  the  principals  who  induced 
them  to  go  there ;  never  said  there  was  no  God  ;  Burke  wanted  the 
members  to  believe  there  was  no  Saviour  ;  never  heard  that  the 
society  dissolved  in  consequence  of  witness's  blasphemous  expressions, 
for  he  never  made  use  of  any.  When  the  petition  of  the  London 
Corresponding  Society  was  refused,  some  of  them  said,  they  ought  to 
go  to  the  throne  with  arms,  and  have  what  they  wanted.  One  Baxter 
in  London,  asked  witness  if  he  had  room  for  an  hundred  arms,  and  if 
he  would  meet  some  of  the  members  at  Turnstyle,  Holborn,  and  learn 
his  exercise,  as  the  Sheffield  members  did.  Witness  administered 
oaths  to  some  people,  but  they  were  not  children  ;  some  of  them  were 
apprentices  ;  could  not  say  how  old  the  little  boy  was  that  he  swore 
in  Castle-street ;  was  more  than  ten  years  of  age  ;  if  he  were  pro- 
duced, he  might  guess  ;  did  not  know  his  name  ;  the  youngest  he  ever 
swore  was  seventeen  years  of  age  ;  it  was  a  rule  not  to  admit  any 
members  under  eighteen  ;  there  was  one  James  Steward,  who  used 
to  cai'ry  about  the  books  ;  never  swore  a  boy  with  a  pistol  to  his 
breast ;  was  asked  before  about  it,  but  it  was  not  true  ;  witness  did 
venture  to  deny  it  upon  a  former  trial ;  heard  the  Telegraphic  and 
Philanthropic  Societies  consisted  of  one  hundred  ;  could  not  tell  how 
many  Protestants  ;  there  were  Protestants  and  Romans  in  the  Philan- 
thropic Society ;  witness  used  frequently  to  work  on  Sunday  ;  did  not 
attend  church,  when  he  thought  it  no  crime  to  kill  the  King ;  did  not 
go  to  church  at  the  time  the  pistol  was  fired  into  the  watcli-house  ; 
there  was  an  intention  of  liberating  the  recruits  in  a  crimping-house 
at  the  corner  of  Bull-alley ;  did  not  know  how  much  bounty  he  got, 
when  he  enlisted ;  witness's  brother  changed  his  name  to  John  Wright ; 
is  now  in  Chester ;  witness  liked  the  prisoner  as  a  Defender  when 
he  belonged  to  them ;  never  declared,  since  he  was  taken  up,  that  he 
would  rather  hang  the  prisoner  than  any  of  thera.  The  members 
of  the  Philanthropic  Society  were  divided  into  four  divisions,  and 
there  Avere  thirty-five  in  each  division ;  did  not  believe  the  prisoner 
was  a  member  of  the  Philanth»opic  Society. 

Alderman  James,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Prime-Serjeant. 
Granted  a  warrant   against  the  prisoner,  to   Mr.  Philip  Henry 


THE   DEFENDEKf.  423 

Godfrey,   grounded    upon  informations    from    Lawler,   who    gave   a 
description  of  the  ditFerent  persons  and  where  they  would  be  found. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Took  Lawler's  examination  upon  the  27th  of  August.  Atkinson 
was  arrested  upon  the  24tli ;  witness  went  to  the  Liberty,  where  he 
saw  near  three  thousand  people,  Avho  dispersed  upon  seeing  him  and 
the  army.  Had  information  there  was  an  intention  to  attack  the 
castle  and  the  bank  ;  had  information  from  Lawler  and  other  persons  ; 
did  not  take  the  information  of  those  other  persons  upon  oath,  because 
they  did  not  wish  to  have  their  names  made  public  ;  their  information 
agreed  with  that  given  by  Lawler ;  Lawler  did  not  say,  he  was  one  of 
the  party  to  attack  the  Chancellor. 

Philip  Henry  Godfrey,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Worthington. 

Received  a  warrant  from  Alderman  James,  to  apprehend  the 
prisoner  and  several  others,  and  accordingly  went  to  the  house  where 
the  prisoner  lived  ;  bro_ke  open  the  street  door  with  a  sledge,  went  up 
stairs,  found  the  prisoner  and  another  boy  in  bed  ;  took  a  paper,  or 
parchment  out  of  the  prisoner's  breeches  pocket ;  knew  they  were  his 
breeches,  fi'om  his  having  told  the  witness  so  ;  they  wei'e  not  the 
breeches  which  the  prisoner  put  on  ;  found  some  parchment  and 
papers  in  a  box  in  the  room  ;  a  broken  blundei'buss,  and  about  twenty 
rounds  of  ball  cartridge  ;  witness  did  not  inquire  whose  the  box  was  ; 
nor  did  he  know. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Lysaght. 

Did  not  know  of  any  threat,  or  promise  held  out  to  the  prisoner ; 
witness  did  not  hold  out  any ;  would  not  answer  for  what  the  persons 
about  the  prisoner  might  have  done.  On  the  way  to  Newgate,  the 
prisoner  told  the  witness  that  the  breeches  were  his  ;  he  also  said  he 
was  a  sworn  Defender,  but  was  sworn  by  compulsion,  and  had  the 
parchment  forced  upon  him  ;  witness  did  not  know,  nor  could  he  form 
a  belief,  whether  Lawler  visited  the  prisoner  at  the  house  where  he 
lived. 

[Here  the  parchment  found  in  the  breeches  pocket  was  read,  and  was 

as  follows : — ] 

"  I,  A.  B.,  do  in  presence  of  God,  swear  of  my  own  free  will  and 

accord,  that  I  will  be  true  to  the  present  United  States  of  F and 

I and  every  other  kingdom  now  in  Christianity,  as  far  as  in  my 

power  lies  without  hurting  my  soul  or  body,  as  long  as  they  prove  so 
to  me  :  and  moi'e  I  do  swear,  that  I  will  not  go  with  any  robber  or 
thief,  or  any  person  that  is  suspected  to  defame  our  society  in  any 
character  whatsoever,  or  keep  such  people  company,  if  to  my  know- 
ledge I  know  it :  and  more  I  do  swear,  that  I  will  be  true  to  my 
committee  and  brothers,  that  is  to  say,  in  supporting  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  united  states  of  the  kingdom  now  in  brotherhood,  or 
may  be  hereafter,  and  that  I  will  not  wrong  any  of  my  brothers  to  the 
value  of  twopence  sterling,  to  my  knowledge  :  and  more  I  do  swear, 
that  I  will  not  come  as  an  evidence  against  any  of  my  brothers  in  any 


424 


TR1AI.S    OF 


cause  wliatsoever,  except  on  a  court-martial  held  by  our  committees, 
on  pain  of  exclusion  or  death,  whichsomever  is  deserving  :  and  more 
I  do  swear,  that  I  will  not  strike  or  ill  use  a  brother  in  any  respect ; 
and  that  if  I  see  a  brother  struck  or  ill  used,  I  will  aid  and  assist  him 
as  far  as  in  my  power  lies,  if  in  a  just  cause,  if  to  my  knowledge  he 
is  a  brother  ;  and  all  brothers  is  to  live  lovingly  and  friendly  together, 
and  to  have  no  quarrels  or  disputes  whatsoever,  and  he  that  does,  is 
to  be  excluded  as  long  as  the  committee  thinks  proper,  and  to  avoid 
such  things,  you  are  not  to  play  at  any  sort  of  gaming  with  any 
of  your  brothers  for  more  than  sixpence  sterling  at  one  time :  and 
more  I  do  swear,  that  I  will  help  to  support  a  lawful  well  inclined 
bi'other  in  all  distresses  whatsoever  as  far  as  in  my  power  lies,  without 
hurting  myself  or  my  family,  and  that  I  will  meet  when  and  where 
my  committee  thinks  proper,  and  spend  what  is  agreeable  to  my 
committee  and  company,  and  that  monthly  or  as  the  committee  thinks 
proper,  and  this  article  is  according  to  the  united  states  of  the 
kingdom." 

Signed  by  order,  or  of  the 

head  committee  of  F.  &  I. 

Mr.  M'Nally  objected  to  the  reading  of  the  papers  found  in  the 
box  ;  they  were  not  proved  to  be  the  prisoner's  hand-writing,  nor  was 
the  box  proved  to  be  his  property. 

The  Court  said  the  papers  found  in  the  box  could  not  be  read. 

Oliver  Carleton,  Esq.,  sworn — Examined  by  Mr.  Ruxton. 

This  witness  repeated  the  testimony  he  had  given  in  the  former 
cases. 

Evidence  for  the  crown  closed. 

Mr.  Lysaght — My  lords  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  have  been 
very  suddenly  called  on  to-day  (as  I  was  also  on  the  last  trial)  to 
defend  the  unfortunate  prisoner  at  the  bar ;  the  very  able  and  elo- 
quent advocate,  who  had  been  assigned  one  of  his  counsel,  having 
been  prevented  by  avocations  elsewhere,  I  presume,  or  some  other 
justifiable  reasons  from  attending.  And  I  feel  this  disadvantage  the 
more  strongly,  inasmuch  as  the  facts  charged  against  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar,  are  of  a  very  different  nature  from  the  facts  charged  against 
those  for  whom  I  had  been  originally  assigned  counsel.  I  likewise 
feel  much  discouragement  in  my  own  mind,  and  am  diffident  of  its 
executions  from  reflecting  that  I  have  the  misfortune  to  differ  in  some 
degree  from  the  Bench,  in  my  conception,  both  of  the  nature  of  the 
evidence,  and  the  law,  applicable  to  the  facts  which  were  thought  to 
have  appeared  on  the  last  trial — the  trial  of  Kennedy. 

I  feel  all  due  respect  for  the  bench,  and  trust  it  is  not  inconsistent 
with  that  sentiment  to  say,  that  their  lordships  are  to  fulfil  a  very 
important  and  awful  duty  ;  they  are  to  decide  the  law  and  to  be 
adjudged  by  the  present  generation,  and  by  posterity  for  such  decision, 
on  cases  of  singular  nicety  and  acknowledged  novelty.  As  to  matters 
of  fact,  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  are  to  be  assisted  and  advised,  but 
by  no  means  governed  or  controuled  by  their  lordships.  The  court 
which  I  have  the  honour  to  address,  will  tell  yon  that  by  our  happy 
constitution,  you   are  to  determine  matters  of  fact,   as  they  are  to 


THE  DEFENDEKS.  425 

determine  points  of  law  resulting  from,  or  arising  out  of  the  evidence  ; 
therefore,  should  any  judge  on  any  trial,  labour  hard  for  hours,  and 
argue  strenuously  to  make  strong  impressions  on  your  minds,  analyze, 
sift,  doubt,  question  and  consider  fully  such  argumentative  charge  ;  and 
should  you  feel  a  different  persuasion  from  that  sought  to  be  stamped 
on  you — away  with  all  false  delicacy  and  culpable  veneration  for  the 
bench.  Judge  for  yourselves — prefer  your  own  judgments — assert 
and  vindicate,  and  maintain  the  undoubted  rights  of  juries.  In  this 
respect,  I  mean  the  authority  and  supremacy  (if  I  may  use  the 
expression)  of  juries,  the  wisdom  of  the  law  is  manifest.  Judges  of 
the  land  are  enveloped  in  abstract  studies  ;  their  minds  pure  and  lofty, 
are  filled  with  lucubrations  of  twenty  years,  and  incessant  contem- 
plations on  the  book  of  science.  You,  gentlemen,  are  conversant 
with  the  transactions  of  ordinary  life,  and  have  daily  opportunities  of 
reading  every  diversified  page  of  human  disposition,  habit,  and 
character ;  and  ai"e,  (I  say  it  with  great  respect  to  the  court)  more 
competent  than  a  jury  composed  of  twelve  judges  could  be,  to  try 
matters  of  vulgar  incident  and  grovelling  fact. 

Gentlemen,  having  said  thus  much,  I  shall  concisely  and  strictly 
consider    the  facts  which    have  appeared  in  anything  like  credible 
proof  this  day  against  the  prisoner  at  the  bar — the  Solicitor- Genei*al, 
who  stated  the  case  for  the  crown  with  great  candour — has  told  you 
that  the  evidence  on  which  only  you  should  convict  the   prisoner, 
ought  to  be  such  as  could  leave  not  a  hinge  to  hang  a  doubt  on — the 
expression  does  him  honour — meet  that  idea  gentlemen,  and  even 
enlarge  by  your  commentary  on  it,  and  add,  that  the  doubt  should  be  a 
reasonable  one,  such  as  a  rational  mind  should  give  reception  to.     Go 
thus  far  and  regulate  your  decision  by  that  criterion,  and  I  trust,  that 
I  need  ask  no  more,  I  trust,  that  I  shall  fill  a  reasonable  mind  with 
rational  doubt  as  to  the  prisoner's  guilt.     I  shall  not  arrogate  more  to 
my  humble   talents — a  more  eloquent  advocate  could  illustrate  his 
innocence.     My  lords,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,   the  unfortunate 
child  at  the  bar,  is  indicted  for  two  species  of  high  treason,  for  com- 
passing and  imagining  the  death  of  the  King,  and  for  adhering  to  the 
King's  enemies  : — all  of  anything  like  credible  evidence  to  support 
the  indictment,   is  a  paper  said  to  be  found  in  the  prisoner's  room, 
importing  that  the  person  reciting  it,  is  to  be  true  to  the  united  states 
of  F.  and  I. — F.  and  I.  are  stated  by  counsel  to  mean  France  and 
Ireland.     The   evidence,   which    I    shall  beg  leave  to  call  utterly 
incredible,   is   the   testimony   of   Lawler.     Now,   gentlemen,   in    my 
humble  apprehension,  the  barely  having  in  one's  possession,  without 
publication,  such  a  paper  as  that  found  in  the  prisoner's  room,  is  not 
an  overt  act  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  the  paper  contains 
no  intelligence,  there  has  been  no  attempt  at  proving  any  intended 
correspondence  or  communication  with  the  enemy.     Where  do  the 
prosecutors  look  for  treason  in  this  case,  they  are  driven  to  explore 
the  foulest  place,  the  breast  of  an  inftmious  witness — exclusive  of  the 
testimoy  of  Lawler,  nothing  has  appeared  to  fix  treason   or  felony 
under  the  White-boy  acts,  or  Defenderism,  or  even  sedition  upon  the 
prisoner.     The  Solicitor- General,  in  stating,  that  the  prisoner  declared 
to  Lawler,  that  his  wish  and  design  was  to  massacre  all  the  Pi'otestants ; 
said  it  shewed  such  malignity,  that  he  could  not  believe  it  existed 


426  TRIALS   OF 

in  the  minds  of  many  men  of  this  country.  Merciful  God,  is  such  a 
witness  as  Lawler  to  be  credited  when  he  imputes  such  a  sanguinary 
disposition  to  any  person,  to  a  boy  of  tender  years !  No ;  gentlemen, 
youth  is  not  the  season  when  that  depravity  seizes  the  heart.  The 
poor  prisoner  must  have  been  a  fiend  trom  his  birth  if  he  harboured 
such  a  thought.  He  must  have  been  suckled  by  a  tigress  or  hyena, 
and  have  served  his  apprenticeship  among  the  cannibals  in  the  human 
butcher's  stall!  No;  gentlemen,  the  wretch  who  perjured  himself 
for  the  paltry  bounty-money  given  to  recruits,  is  more  likely  to  invent 
a  falsehood  under  the  influence  of  sanguine  expectation  of  gi-eat 
reward,  than  a  young  boy  of  reputable  connexions  and  good  education, 
is  to  form  the  horrid  scheme  of  murdering  all  the  Protestants. 
Lawler  told  you  the  prisoner  said  he  quitted  one  club  because  there 
were  Protestants  in  it,  yet  he  swears  the  same  Protestant-hater  got 
into  another  club,  in  which  there  were  more  members  Protestants 
than  in  the  former  club.  Lawler  confessed  that  he  fired  a  loaded 
pistol  into  a  watch-house  full  of  watchmen,  and  that  he  thought  it  no 
crime  to  murder  his  King.  Is  it  not  likely  therefore,  gentlemen,  that 
this  nefarious  wretch,  stained  with  perjuries,  felonies,  and  treasons — 
insatiate  of  blood  like  the  Renault  of  the  poet  and  the  Robespierre 
of  inhuman  memory — ^is  not  likely,  I  say,  that  the  caitiff  who  would 
murder  his  King  in  the  speculation  of  power,  would  invent  the  horrid 
tale  of  intended  massacre,  to  facilitate  the  murder  of  a  subject  in  the 
speculation  and  chance  of  reward.  His  consistency  has  been  men- 
tioned— yes,  he  is  very  consistent ;  for  the  printed  trials  of  Weldon 
and  Leary  were  probably  in  his  hand,  till  he  came  into  court — in  his 
perjuries  and  execrable  treachery  he  is  consistent.  Weldon  is  to  die, 
by  the  evidence  which  a  jury  disregarded,  though  it  was  thus  con- 
sistent on  the  trial  of  Leary.  Kennedy  has  been  convicted  by  another 
jury,  who  with  great  respect  to  them,  I  say  it,  possibly  did  not  reflect 
that  a  witness  of  veracity  might  not  be  so  minute  in  the  detail,  so 
circumstantial  and  consistent — in  his  insatiable  thirst  for  blood  he  is 
consistent — I  know  not  what  measure  of  it  will  glut  him,  if  you  do 
not  act  with  caution  and  mercy.  Titus  Oates  was  not  less  consistent 
— numbers  of  false  witnesses  have  been  as  consistent — deluded  juries 
and  judges  have  been  abused  by  their  apparent  consistency,  and 
numbers  of  innocent  men  have  fallen  victims  to  it. 

Gentlemen,  you  are  not,  I  hope,  to  be  misled  by  any  description  of 
the  distracted  state  of  the  country,  to  give  an  unwarrantable,  pre- 
cipitate verdict  of  guilty,  on  a  charge  of  high  ti*eason.  If  there  be. 
Defenders,  there  are  statutes  in  force  against  them  amply  sufficient  to 
curb  such  offences,  and  the  punishment  in  many  cases  of  Defenderism 
is  death.  Will  you  libel  the  nation  by  magnifying  outrage,  riot,  or 
felony  into  treason  ?  Do  not  preclude  the  reformation  of  the  lower 
classes,  by  infusing  into  then-  minds  a  distaste  for  our  invaluable  con- 
stitution, which  they  indubitably  will  feel  if  the  administration  of 
justice  be  not  pure,  temperate  and  just. 

I  shall  call  witnesses  of  unimpeachable  character  to  shew  that 
Lawler  deserves  no  credit  on  liis  oath  in  a  court  of  justice.  He  has 
not  particularized  dates  ;  we  therefore  cannot  produce  witnesses  to 
prove  an  alibi — consider,  gentlemen,  the  avowed  infamy  of  the  wit- 
ness, and  the  extreme  youth  of  the  prisoner — in  the  case  of  William 


THE    DEFENDERS.  427 

Yorke  adverted  to  on  another  trial,  the  murder  spoke  for  itself  and 
established  criminality  with  a  crying  fact — but  the  crime  imputed  to 
the  prisoner  is  a  crime  of  intention,  the  proof  of  it  is  resting  on  the 
testimony  of  an  infidel  felon.  Gentlemen,  I  have  done,  remember 
that  the  God  Avho  gave  these  favourite  kingdoms  so  blest  a  constitu- 
tion, delights  not  in  human  sacrifices. 

William  Rochfort,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Knows  Lawler  six  or  seven  years  ;  his  brother  served  his  time  in 
the  same  house  with  the  witness,  and  went  by  the  name  of  Wright, 
before  he  went  to  England.  Witness  never  belonged  to  any  club,  or 
society. 

Cross-examined. 

Had  been  summoned  to  attend  the  court — he  attended  in  conse- 
quence of  an  indictment  against  him,  at  the  suit  of  John  Giffard,  for 
publishing  a  print,  entitled  "  Kennelling  of  the  Dog." 

Nicholas  Clare,  sworn. 
Gave  the  same  evidence  as  in  the  former  case. 

William  Ebbs,  sworn. 

Gave  the  same  evidence  as  in  former  case. 

Mr.  M'Nally. — My  lords  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is  not  usual 
for  counsel  to  have  permission  to  address  a  jury  on  a  matter  of  evidence, 
or  even  to  state  a  case  in  the  defence  of  a  man  on  the  trial  of  his  life 
for  a  capital  crime  ;  for  so  rigid  is  the  ancient  rule  of  the  common  law, 
that  except  on  collateral  points  of  law,  the  court  never  assigned 
counsel.  But  the  legislature,  gentlemen,  has  by  a  humane  and  indul- 
gent statute  in  favour  of  the  people  relaxed  that  rigour,  and  has  given 
to  a  prisoner,  who  is  charged  with  the  crime  of  high  treason,  a  privi- 
lege to  demand  the  aid  of  counsel,  who  ai"e  in  such  cases  assigned  by 
the  court.  It  is  by  the  authority  of  that  statute,  gentlemen,  that  I  now 
have  the  honour  of  addressing  you  on  the  part  of  the  pi'isoner  at  the 
bar.  But,  gentlemen,  I  have  to  regret  that  the  act  to  which  I  have 
alluded,  has  not  in  every  particular  and  provision  followed  the  whole- 
some English  statute  for  regulating  trials  for  high  treason,  of  which 
it  is  but  merely  a  short  abi'idgment ;  for  if  the  Irish  act  followed  the 
English  statute,  I  should  not  now  have  any  occasion  to  address  you  on 
the  part  of  the  unfortunate  youth  standing  at  the  bar ;  for,  by  the 
English  statute  it  is  provided,  that  in  all  cases  of  high'  treason,  where 
corruption  of  blood  is  the  consequence  of  a  conviction,  there  can  be 
no  verdict  of  guilty  unless  there  be  at  least  two  witnesses  produced  by 
the  crown  to  support  one  overt  act  of  treason,  or  one  witness  to  one 
overt  act,  and  a  second  witness  to  another  overt  act  of  the  same  species 
of  treason,  so  that  in  the  present  case,  if  the  English  statute  had  been 
fully  adopted  by  the  Irish  legislature  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  must 
be  acquitted  in  point  of  law,  as  there  is  but  one  witness  produced  to 
support  the  overt  acts  of  treason  charged  against  him  in  the  indictment. 
God  forbid!  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  I,  or  any  Irish  lawyer  should 
dare  to  insinuate  that  English  statutes  should  have  authority  in  Ireland 
without  the  sanction  of  the  Irish  parliament.  But  principle  is  immu- 
table ;   principle  is  the  t^ame  in  both  countries,  and  I  trust  I  ha\  e  a 


428  TRIALS   OF 

riglit  to  tell  you,  that  in  considering  your  verdict  this  day,  it  will  be 
your  duty  to  apply  the  principle  of  English  jurisprudence  to  the  present 
case.  A  great  and  a  learned  writer  has  laid  down  the  principle,  that 
makes  two  witnesses  necessary  in  cases  of  high  treason.  Gentlemen, 
I  will  give  you  his  words.  He  says,  "  in  cases  of  treason,  there 
is  the  accused's  oath  of  allegiance  to  counterpoise  the  information  of 
a  single  witness,  and  that  may  perhaps  be  one  reason  why  the  law 
requires  a  double  testimony  to  convict  him  ;"  though  "  the  principal 
reason,"  continues  the  learned  commentator,  "  undoubtedly  is  to 
secure  the  subject  from  being  sacrificed  to  fictitious  conspiracies  which 
have  been  the  engines  of  profiigate  and  crafty  politicians  in  all  ages." 
Gentlemen,  I  do  not  mean  to  apply  the  words  "  crafty  politicians"  in 
the  same  manner  they  are  applied  by  the  learned  judge,  whose  words 
I  have  just  quoted.  I  do  not  mean  to  apply  them  to  any  of  the 
persons  carrying  on  the  business  of  government  in  this  country.  No, 
gentlemen,  the  "  crafty  politician,"  whom  I  intend  to  make  the  object 
of  your  serious  consideration,  as  I  am  well  convinced  he  is  of  your 
abhorrence,  is  Mr.  William  Lawler,  the  witness  who  has  this  day 
made  his  fourth  appeai'ance  in  this  court.  Gentlemen,  it  is  clear  that 
he  is  the  "crafty  politician"  who  was  well  versed  in  acts  of  deceit 
before  he  left  England.  It  was  there  he  became  tutored  in  vice — it 
was  there  he  noviciated  in  the  acts  of  hypocrisy  and  dissimulation, 
and  from  thence  he  returned  into  this,  his  native  countiy,  a  corrupter 
of  our  unsuspecting  and  unwary  youths.  Like  Satan  who  scaled  the 
gardens  of  Eden,  and  having  instilled  the  poisons  of  sin  under  the 
pretence  of  communicating  knowledge  into  the  ears  of  innocence, 
abandoned  the  deluded  victims  of  his  diabolical  subtility  and  deceit, 
to  death  and  perdition.  Gentlemen,  as  we  have  adopted  the  English 
constitution,  Ave  have  a  right  to  decide  upon  its  principles.  In 
England,  one  witness,  though  immaculate  as  an  angel,  could  not 
convict  a  person  charged  with  high  treason,  and  will  you,  gentlemen, 
establish,  by  a  verdict  of  guilty,  that  in  Ireland  the  tainted  breath  of 
a  fiend,  which  in  England  could  not  agitate  a  feather  in  the  scale  of 
justice,  shall  start  and  blast  from  the  face  of  the  earth  one  of  God's 
creatures !  It  may  be  asked  what  could  have  been  Lawler's  motive  ? 
I  answer — God,  the  seai'cher  of  hearts,  can  only  know  the  motives  of 
this  devil,  in  first  seducing  his  proselytes,  and  then  betraying  them  to 
death.  He  has  said,  repentence  was  his  motive,  but  I  rather  conceive 
it  ai'ose  from  the  impulse  of  fear.  Gentlemen,  his  object  for  instituting 
societies  however  is  plain.  The  bank  was  one  of  his  objects — so  says 
Alderman  James — could  he  have  but  persuaded  those  that  he  had 
seduced  to  have  assisted  him  in  plundering  the  bank,  his  object  would 
have  been  fvdfilled,  and  under  another  fictitious  name  he  would  have 
fled  elsewhere  to  enjoy  his  plundei*,  and  meditate  on  fresh  enormities. 
Gentlemen,  permit  me  to  trespass  a  little  further  on  your  indulgence, 
permit  me  to  solicit  your  serious  attention  to  Mr.  William  Lawler,  the 
prosecutor,  and  to  the  prisoner.  In  the  one  you  see  an  adept  in 
wickedness,  which  could  only  result  from  a  polluted  heart  and  spotted 
soul.  In  the  other,  you  view  a  boy  who  from  his  youth  must  appear 
to  you  a  novice  in  politics  and  in  offences ;  and  if  you  should  believe 
that  he  has  been  misled  and  fallen  into  error,  surely  you  will  not  visit 
the  sins  of  the  seducer  upon  the  head  of  the  seduced.     I  will  venture 


THE   DEFENDERS.  429 

to  argue,  gentlemen,  that  from  legal  principle  you  ought  not. 
Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  the  confession  made  by  Mr.  Lawler,  the 
witness.  What  confessions  have  you  heard  him  make  ?  You  have 
heard  him  confess  to  the  commission  of  felonies,  of  conspiracies,  and 
of  perjuries.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  maintain,  that  by  the  law  of  the  land 
if  Lawler  had  been  convicted  of  even  one  felony,  one  conspiracy,  or 
one  perjury,  by  producing  the  I'ecord  of  conviction  of  either  of  those 
crimes,  the  court  would  be  bovuid  to  prevent  him  from  giving  evidence 
on  the  ground  of  incompetency  arising  from  infamy,  and  you  woidd 
be  bound  to  acquit  the  prisoner  for  want  of  evidence.  Competency  is 
a  question  of  law,  it  is  to  be  determined  by  the  court,  but  after  the 
court  have  determined  upon  the  competency,  and  the  witness  is  sworn, 
then  arises  the  question  of  credit,  and  that  question  depends  solely  on 
the  determination  of  the  jury.  From  these  premises  I  draw  conclu- 
sions, which  I  submit  to  your  deliberation.  I  submit  that  every  juror 
amongst  you  must  from  the  perception  of  your  own  reason,  consider 
Lawler  in  no  other  light  than  as  a  convict — you  must  from  the  evidence 
of  your  own  senses,  for  you  saAv  and  you  heard  him,  consider  him  as 
convicted  on  his  own  confession,  the  strongest  evidence  the  law  knows 
when  applied  against  the  party  confessing,  though  the  weakest  and 
most  suspicious  when  made  use  of  against  a  second  person.  I  say, 
that  Lawler,  on  his  own  confession,  stands  a  convict  before  you  of  one 
felony  in  attempting  to  murder  a  watchman,  by  discharging  a  loaded 
pistol  into  the  watch-hovise — of  one  conspiracy  to  murder  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  and  of  one  other  to  murder  a  witness  who  was  to  give 
evidence  on  the  part  of  the  crown.  Perjuries  are  also  recorded  in  the 
black  schedule  of  his  crimes,  and  of  those  you  are  also  in  possession 
by  the  strongest  proof  possible — his  own  confession.  If,  then,  gentle- 
men, you  believe  this  witness  guilty  of  those  crimes  which  he  has 
himself  confessed,  does  he  not  stand  before  you  as  a  convicted  felon, 
and  of  course  as  infamous  and  as  villainous  as  if  he  had  been  regularly 
tried  and  found  guilty  by  any  other  jury  ?  I  repeat  it,  gentlemen,  if 
this  miscreant  had  been  convicted  by  another  jury,  you,  gentlemen  of 
the  jury,  could  not  this  day  have  heard  his  testimony,  the  law  would 
have  arrested  his  evidence,  for  the  court  could  not  legally,  and  there 
fore  would  not  have  submitted  him  to  have  imdergone  an  examination  ; 
and  I  say,  it  follows  of  course,  that  if  you  are  bound  to  hear  his 
testimony,  he  not  being  an  incompetent  witness,  yet  you  are  also 
bound  to  reject  his  evidence,  he  not  being  worthy  of  x^redit ;  for  the 
same  principle  that  rules  the  court  on  the  question  of  competency, 
should,  from  analogy  and  principle,  rule  the  judgment  of  a  jury  on 
the  question  of  credit. 

Gentlemen,  three  witnesses  have  been  produced  on  the  part  of  the 
prisoner,  and  they,  from  a  knowledge  of  the  general  character  of  Mr. 
Lawler,  the  witness,  from  a  knowledge  of  his  impiety  and  immorality, 
have  positively  deposed,  that  he  is  a  man  of  so  infamous  a  character, 
that  he  ought  not  to  have  credit  on  his  oath,  giving  evidence  in  a 
court  of  justice.  Gentlemen,  an  attempt  has  been  made  by  the  counsel 
for  the  cro^vn  to  impeach  the  testimony  of  those  witnesses,  it  has  been 
shewn  on  a  ci-oss-examination  that  one  of  them  was  a  member  of  the 
Telegraphic  iSociety  at  a  time  when  its  pvu'poses  were  merely  confined 
to  reading  ;  but  does  that  aifect  his  credit  ?  or  if  it  did,  are  there  not 


430  TRIALS     OF 

twelve  othei'  witnesses  wlio  do  not  belong  to  any  society,  well 
acquainted  with  his  general  character  and  infamy?  Gentlemen,  the 
twelve  witnesses  I  speak  of  are  yourselves.  Gentlemen,  let  me  entreat 
of  you  when  you  retire  from  your  box  to  deliberate  on  your  verdict, 
to  ask  each  other,  whether  this  fellow  is  not  of  a  most  infamous 
character  ?  Whether  you  have  not  full  evidence  before  you  from  out 
of  his  own  mouth,  of  his  infamy,  and  whether  you,  as  jurors  upon 
your  oaths,  with  the  internal  knowledge  of  his  guilt  in  youi'  minds, 
can  give  evidence  to  the  testimony  of  so  abandoned,  so  infamous,  and 
so  impious  a  wretch  upon  his  oath  ? 

Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  the  consistency  of  this 
witness.  My  learned  friend,  Mr.  Lysaght,  has  made  several  pointed 
and  judicious  animadversions  on  this  subject ;  I  shall,  therefore,  only 
ti'ouble  you  with  one  or  two  more.  From  what  cause  does  this  con- 
sistency proceed  ?  Is  it  the  emanation  of  a  cool,  collected,  ingenuous, 
and  virtuous  mind  ?  No !  An  honest  man  in  giving  evidence  to 
affect  the  life  of  his  fellow -creature,  to  affect  the  life  of  a  boy,  whom  he 
had  described  as  having  been  once  his  confidential  friend,  would  evince 
compunction  and  feeling,  he  would  give  his  evidence  with  trembling, 
and  apprehension,  he  would  not  have  shown  a  promptitude  to  answer, 
an  eagerness  to  explain  and  connect,  arising  from  a  pre-determined 
intention  to  convict.  Gentlemen,  the  witness  is  well-experienced  and 
perfect  in  tlie  part  he  has  this  day  acted  on  the  table.  He  has  been 
examined  on  the  different  trials,  these  trials  have  been  printed — he 
has  read  them  with  attention,  he  has  studied  his  vade  mecum  of 
evidence,  and  now  comes  into  court  fully  instructed  and  prepared 
from  his  printed  briefs.  I  will  now  show  you  in  what  Mr.  Lawler  has 
not  been  consistent.  He  has  suppressed  and  he  has  extended  his 
evidence  to  answer  his  views.  He  has  this  day  gone  further  before 
the  court  than  he  ventm-ed  to  go  when  he  gave  his  informations  before 
Mr.  Alderman  James;  he,  on  that  occasion,  suppressed  the  intended 
assassination  of  the  Lord  Chancellor,  he  suppressed  the  intended 
assassination  of  Cockayne,  and  would  still,  no  doubt,  have  suppressed 
his  knowledge  of  those  diabolical  conspiracies  if  I  had  not  extorted  a 
confession  from  him  on  his  cross-examination  on  a  former  trial. 
Gentlemen,  his  suppression  of  dates  is  most  material,  for  except  in 
one  instance,  this  witness  of  extraordinary  memory  has  recollected 
but  one  date.  The  intent  of  this  cunning  is  manifest.  Had  he  sworn 
to  dates  the  prisoner  might  have  proved  an  alibi,  that  is,  gentlemen, 
he  might  have  shown  that  on  the  day  sworn  to  by  the  witness,  he,  the 
prisoner,  was  in  another  place ;  but  the  witness,  by  artfully  omitting 
the  day,  has  precluded  the  prisoner  from  defending  himself  from  any 
charge  depending  on  time  or  locality. 

It  is  unnecessary  for  me,  gentlemen,  to  engage  your  time  by  enter- 
ing at  large  into  the  law  of  the  case,  the  court  will  fully  instruct  you 
on  that  head,  but  the  determination  lies  with  yourselves,  for  I  venture 
to  say,  that  no  lawyer  will  controvert  the  right  of  the  jury  to  determine 
on  the  law  as  well  as  on  the  fact  in  a  criminal  case ;  to  take  both 
together  into  their  consideration,  to  determine  upon  both  together, 
and  to  found  their  verdict  on  both  is  the  established  and  indubitable 
right  of  a  jury.  This  leads  me,  gentlemen,  to  take  a  slight  view  of 
the  indictment,  in  doing  which,  I  shall  anticipate  an  observation  that 


THE    DEFENDERS.  431 

may  be  probably  made  this  day,  because  it  was  made  by  the  counsel 
for  the  ci'own  on  a  foraier  occasion,  and  the  case  of  Doctor  Hensey,  as 
convicted  in  London  for  high  ti'cason,  was  mentioned  to  support  it. 

Gentlemen,  the  indictment  which  you  have  heard  read,  and  which 
you  are  to  decide  on,  consists  of  two  species  of  high  treason.  It  first 
charges  the  prisoner  with  compassing  the  death  of  the  King  ;  and 
secondly,  it  charges  him  with  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  As 
to  the  tirst  charge,  I  conceive  it  has  not  been  supported.  And  as  to 
the  second,  as  I  presume,  the  counsel  for  the  crown  rely  upon  it,  to  it 
alone  will  I  call  your  attention.  The  overt  acts  in  this  species  of 
treason  to  be  found  in  the  books,  are  these  :  giving  intelligence  to  the 
enemy ;  selling  them  provisions  ;  selling  them  arms,  or  surrendering 
to  them  a  fortress.*  In  every  trial  I  have  seen  on  this  species  of 
treason,  there  has  been  evidence  of  a  connection,  a  reciprocity 
between  the  parties  charged  as  traitors  and  the  enemy,  but  you  have 
not  had  a  scintilla  of  evidence  laid  before  you  to  shew  the  slightest 
commimication  between  the  pi'isoner,  or  between  the  persons  denomi- 
nated Defenders  and  the  King's  enemies,  "  the  persons  exercising  the 
powers  of  government  in  France,"  nothing  even  like  agencies  has 
been  given  in  evidence.  In  Florence  Hensey's  case,  quoted  by  the 
Chief-Justice  on  a  former  trial,  there  was  actual  evidence  given  of 
Jiis  correspondence  with  a  minister  of  France.  In  De  la  Motte's  case, 
it  was  proved,  that  through  the  medium  of  agency  he  communicated 
intelligence  to  the  enemy,  and  in  that  case  it  was  said,  that  the 
prisoner  by  entering  into  a  conspiracy,  to  send  intelligence  to  the 
French,  was  not  guilty  of  high  treason,  but  that  the  intelligence 
which  was  sent  must  be  laid  before  the  court  by  legal  evidence. 
Now,  here  the  evidence  goes  no  further  than  a  bare  conspiracy.  In 
Jackson's  case,  recent  in  eveiy  man's  memory,  letters  delivered  at 
the  post-office,  intended  to  be  transmitted  to  foreign  parts,  containing 
a  description  of  the  situation  of  this  country  for  the  use  of  the  enemy, 
were  arrested  in  their  progress  in  the  post-office.  Gentlemen,  have 
you  any  evidence  similar  to  this  in  the  case  before  you  ?  No ;  in  aU 
the  above  cases  the  treason  was  consummate.  In  the  case  before  you, 
the  treason  is  inchoate.  In  the  offence  of  compassing  and  imagining 
the  King's  death,  wise  and  eminent  lawyers  have  certainly  held  that 
evidence  of  the  intent  substantiated  the  crime,  but  .no  lawyer  has  as 
yet  ventured  to  advance,  that  an  intent  to  adhere  to  the  King's 
enemies  substantiated  the  offence  of  high  treason,  and  gentlemen,  I 
do  insist,  that  should  you  believe  every  word  Lawler  has  sworn,  and 
the  construction  the  King's  counsel  has  put  upon  the  papers  produced, 
an  intent  to  adhere,  or  a  conspiracy  to  adhere,  and  no  more,  has  been 
given  in  evidence.  I  will  go  further ;  I  will  venture  to  maintain, 
that  the  indictment  does  not  charge  a  substantial  treason.  Gentlemen, 
attend  to  the  overt  act.  It  charges  that  the  prisoner,  in  order  to 
enlist  William  Lawler,  a  liege  subject  of  the  King,  to  be  aiding  and 
assisting  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France, 
being  enemies,  in  case  they  should  invade,  or  cause  to  be  invaded, 
this  kingdom,   administered  or  caused  to  be  administered,   an  oath  to 

•  Foster  states  the  circumstances   which  will  amount   to  an  adherence  to  the 
King's  enemies;     Crown  L.  217. 


432  TRIALS    OF 

said  Lawler,  and  swore  said  Lawler  to  a  certain  profession,  declaration 
or  catechism,  to  the  puq^ort  following,  &c.  Now,  gentlemen,  this  I 
say,  goes  no  further  than  to  shew  an  intent  to  commit  treason,  there 
is  no  positive  adherence  to  the  King's  enemies  shewn  by  this  overt 
act ;  the  woi'st  that  is  shewn  is  an  intent  of  conspiring  to  assist 
them  on  the  completion  of  an  uncertain  event,  the  event  of  their 
invading  or  causing  to  be  invaded,  this  country,  an  event  which  I 
trust  in  God,  never  will  take  place,  or  if  such  an  attempt  should  be 
made,  that  it  will  be  rendered  abortive  by  the  spirit  of  Irishmen  and 
the  discomfiture  of  the  foe. 

As  to  the  papers,  I  am  well  aware,  you  will  hear  much  on  their 
meaning  from  the  learned  counsel  who  is  to  reply  on  the  part  of  the 
crown,  but  whatever  constructions  he  may  put  upon  their  contents, 
or  whatever  constructions  you  may  apply  to  them,  it  will  be  your  duty 
to  recollect,  that  they  were  permitted  to  be  read,  not  as  evidence 
connected  immediately  with  the  prisoner,  but  as  evidence  to  shew  an 
existing  conspiracy,  and  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy  is  not  of  itself 
legal  evidence  of  treason  or  of  guilt  against  the  prisoner ;  nor  is 
there  any  evidence  before  you  that  he  had  any  knowledge  of  these 
papers,  they  are  not  offered  as  being  in  his  hand-writing,  they  are 
not  offered  as  being  found  in  his  possession.  But  the  parchment  was 
found  in  a  room  wherein  Mr.  Godfrey,  constable  of  police,  swore  the 
prisoner  lay.  How  is  that  accounted  for  ?  Mr.  Godfrey  told  you  he 
spoke  to  him  on  the  subject,  and  that  he  had  been  sworn  by  com- 
pulsion. If  you  take  what  he  said  to  Godfrey  as  a  confession,  you 
must  take  the  whole  of  that  confession,  and  in  doing  that,  you  must 
take  such  facts  and  circumstances  as  make  for  the  prisoner  as  true. 
Gentlemen,  it  must  be  known  to  some  of  you,  that  persons  of  the  first 
character  in  the  country  have  been  compelled  to  take  the  Defender's 
oath,  at  the  risk  of  loosing  their  lives  if  they  refused,  and  thei-efore 
there  can  be  nothing  fanciful  or  ridiculous  in  my  asserting  that  it  is 
not  impossible,  but  the  prisoner  was  forced  against  his  will  to  take  an 
oath,  and  that  at  the  same  time  the  parchment  produced,  was  put 
into  his  hand.  You  must  have  observed  that  Mr.  Lawler  is  blessed 
with  a  most  accommodating  memory,  he  can  extend  or  contract  it  at 
pleasure  ;  with  the  most  extraordinary  tenacity  he  remembers  every 
conversation  he  held  with  the  prisoner,  not  forgetting  a  single  inter- 
rogatory, or  answer.  I  say,  he  has  a  recollection  for  all  occasions  to 
serve  him  when  necessary,  to  revive,  to  come,  to  go  at  pleasure.  He 
perfectly  recollects  swearing  an  infant,  but  he  cannot  remember  either 
ins  age  or  name.  He  perfectly  recollects  administering  an  unlawful 
oath  of  secrecy  to  him,  but  he  cannot  remember,  whether  he  admi- 
nistered the  oath  with  a  pistol  to  the  boy's  breast.  He  cannot 
recollect  whether  this  boy  was  ten  or  eleven  years  of  age,  but  he 
could  tell  his  age  if  he  saw  him,  and  then,  forgetting  this  circumstance 
for  the  purpose  of  injuring  the  youth  at  the  bar,  he  cunningly  swears 
he  never  administered  an  oath  to  a  man  of  less  than  seventeen  years 
of  age.  Gentlemen,  if  I  do  not  go  fully  into  this  case,  it  is  not  from 
want  of  zeal  or  attention  to  my  client:  this  is  the  fourth  time  I  have 
had  occasion  to  address  a  jury  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Lawler  and  his 
enormities.  The  human  mind  becomes  languid  by  repeatedly  thinking 
on  the  same  subject,  and  when  the  subject  is  like  the  present,  the 


THE   DJirKJNDEHj.  433 

miiul  becomes  disgusted.  Indeed,  gentlemen,  I  liad  forgot  this  is  tlie 
lirst  time  I  liave  had  the  honoui*  of  addressing  jou,  and  from  an  appre- 
hension of  wearying  your  patience,  will  probably  leave  unobserved, 
many  material  points.  But,  gentlemen,  I  feel  consolation  when  I 
look  to  that  bench,  because  I  know  the  great  and  enlightened 
characters  who  preside  there  Avill  not  leave  untovxched  an  iota  of 
evidence  that  has  appeared  to  them  favourable  to  the  prisoner,  but 
will  address  you  in  a  mild  and  constitutional  charge.  Gentlemen, 
judges  are  the  representatives  of  his  Majesty,  and  in  the  discharge 
of  their  judicial  duties  will  follow  that  sacred  obligation  which  his 
Majesty  enters  into  with  the  people,  when  he  assumes  the  reins  of 
executive  government.  I  allude  to  the  coronation  oath,  by  which  the 
father  of  his  people  swears  and  undertakes  to  administer  "justice  in 
mercy,"  he  is  the  fountain  of  mercy,  and  the  mandate  of  his  divine 
attribute  should  floAV  through  the  bosoms  of  every  magistrate  acting 
under  his  delegated  authority. 

The  Solicitor-General,  in  a  strain  of  candour  which  does  that 
learned  advocate  much  honour,  urged  an  observation,  that  I  trust  is 
strongly  impressive  upon  your  minds.  He  told  you  emphatically,  "  If 
there  be  an  hinge  left  by  the  witness  to  turn  a  doubt  upon,  you  ought 
to  acquit ;"  and,  gentlemen,  the  bench  will  lay  down  the  same  rule 
when  they  come  to  give  their  charge.  They  will  tell  you  that  no 
man  ought  to  be  convicted  in  an  Irish  court  of  justice  on  facts  which 
are  not  indubitable.  Where  the  witness  is  weak,  there  must  be  a 
doubt ;  and  vvhere  there  is  a  doubt  there  must  be  an  acquittal.  Such, 
gentlemen,  I  say,  is  the  merciful  rule  of  the  criminal  law  in  this 
country,  that  though  the  conduct  of  a  party  accused,  even  of  the 
most  heinous  offence,  should  not  appear  perfectly  innocent,  yet  he  is 
entitled  to  a  verdict  of  acquittal ;  for  if  there  be  a  doubt  on  the  minds 
of  the  jury,  this  benign  rule  of  clemency  becomes  imperative,  and 
you  will  implicitly  submit  to  its  authority,  for  there  is  an  old  and 
wise  maxim,  better  that  ninety  and  nine  guilty  men  should  escape 
punishment  than  one  innocent  man  suffer.  Gentlemen,  I  shall  here 
conckxde,  imploring  you  to  take  into  your  consideration,  that  though 
you  should  acquit  the  pi'isoner  in  error,  and  hereafter  make  the 
discovery,  as  that  error  will  be  founded  on  mercy,  mercy  originating 
with  God,  and  constituting  the  benign  prerogative  of  the  crown,  the 
discovery  will  neither  distui'b  your  sleep,  nor  injure  your  Avaking 
moments,  you  will  lie  down  in  comfort,  you  vvill  rise  Avith.cheei-fulness, 
you  will  walk  abroad  in  peace  with  placid  consciences.  But,  gentle- 
men, should  you  convict  in  error,  how  would  your  hearts  feel  here- 
after, how  would  your  minds  suffer  from  such  a  horrid  discovery  ? 
Would  not  appalling  fear  shake  every  nerve,  would  not  bitter  remorse 
and  repentance  be  the  consequence  when  you  heard  the  voice  of  an 
innocent  victim  in  the  language  of  the  Scripture,  shrieking  from  the 
grave,  "  Oh  earth  cover  not  thou  my  blood  ?" 

Gentlemen,  one  observation  moi'e.  As  to  what  has  fallen  from  the 
counsel  for  the  crown.  It  has  been  asked,  and  the  question  conveys 
a  strong  conclusion  should  it  go  unanswered — it  is  asked  who  so  likely 
to  give  information  of  treasons  as  a  traitor  ?  I  answer  with  another 
question — who  so  likely  to  swell  minor  offences  into  crimes  of  the 
first  magnitude   as  the  traitor,   who,  with  reward   in  view,  insinuates 

2f 


434  TRIALS  OF 

himself  into  the  conlidence  of  others,  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  be- 
traying of  their  secrets,  or  the  invention  of  chimerical  conspiracies,  the 
means  of  ensuring  that  reward  ?     Gentlemen,  such  a  wretch  is  Lawler 

Mr.   Saurin  followed,  on  part  of  the  crown.* 

Lord  Clonmel,. — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  Patrick  Hart,  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar,  stands  charged  with  high  treason  on  two  distinct  species  of 
treason,  ascertained  by  the  statute  25  Edward  III.  This  is  a  statute 
which  has  not  been  passed  in  the  heat  of  tumultuous  time,  or  the  ardour 
of  irritated  contention.  It  is  a  part  of  the  constitution,  wlaich,  while  it ' 
defends  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown,  and  protects  the  safety  of  the 
royal  person,  is  a  shelter  to  the  liberties  of  the  subject,  by  stating : 
with  clearness  and  with  caution  what  acts  shall  be  considered  high 
treason ;  not  leaving  it  to  tyranny  or  caprice,  to  assume  to  itself,  as 
in  other  countries,  to  deliver  a  distinct  opinion  on  vague  and  uncertain 
charges,  in  order  to  lay  the  ground- work  of  the  destruction  of  indivi- 
duals, in  consequence  of  the  constitution  not  having  been  explicitly 
defined.  The  first  species  of  treason  with  which  he  is  charged,  is 
having  compassed  the  King's  death  on  the  days  and  at  the  places  set 
forth  in  the  indictment.  It  has  been  said  at  the  bar,  and  the  law  is 
so,  that  whoever  endeavours  to  destroy  the  monarchy  by  force,  makes 
an  attempt  to  take  away  the  life  of  the  Monarch  ;  and  one  observation 
shall  not  be  concealed  from  you,  which  is,  that  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies  has  never  been  doubted  as  an  explicit  manifestation  of  an 
intention  to  take  away  his  life.  To  support  this  charge  several  overt 
acts  stated  to  have  been  committed  by  the  prisoner  indicative  not 
solely  of  this  treasonable  intention,  but  also  ascertaining  the  means 
by  which  it  should  be  carried  into  execution,  are  laid  in  the  indict- 
ment. The  same  overt  acts  are  laid  to  support  the  second  charge  in 
the  indictment,  and  to  this  second  charge  I  shall  particularly  direct 
your  attention ;  you  have  heard  these  acts  read  from  the  indictment 
by  the  clerk,  and  I  shall  also  take  notice  of  them : — the  first  is,  that 
during  an  open  and  public  war,  of  which  common  notoriety  is  sufficient 
evidence,  carried  on  by  the  ruling  powers  of  France  and  the  King  of 
these  realms,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  charged,  first,  that  he  as  a  foul 
traitor  against  his  Majesty,  King  George  the  Third,  &c.  [Here  his 
lordship  stated  the  several  overt  acts.]  Gentlemen,  as  part  of  this 
evidence  adduced  in  support  of  this  indictment  is  written  and  part  of 
it  oral,  I  shall  first  state  the  written  vidence.  [His  lordship  then 
read  the  oath  and  the  catechism.] 

These  are  two  of  the  papers ;  you  will  see  from  your  notes  whether 
I  state  them  correctly — these  are  the  papers  sworn  to  be  the  bond  of 
Defenders  in  genei'al.  I  shall  ofl^er  some  observations  on  these  papers, 
in  order  to  explain  the  matter  as  clearly  as  I  can,  which  is  aU  I  desire, 
and  which  is  all  my  duty  calls  on  me  to  do  ;  you  are  the  constitutional 
judges,  and  you  alone  are  to  decide  upon  them  ;  though  a  gentleman  at 
the  bar  stated  he  differed  from  the  judges  ;  if  the  diflference  related  to 
the  situation  of  his  client,  I  am  not  surprised  at  it ;  but  on  that  situation 
I  shall  deliver  no  opinion — I  have  heard  it  said  that  judges  make 
very  bad  jurors — ^to  your  consideration,  I  am  happy  to  say,  the  cause 
is  referred  by  law,  the  verdict  must  be  yours  and  not  mine. 

*  The  present  Editor  has  not  been  able  to  discover  anv  note  of  his  address. 


THE    DEFENDERS  435 

Gentlemen,  the  first  position  for  you  to  consider  (for  that  we  are  at 
war  with  France  is  obvious,)  is  whether  the  society  denominated 
Defenders  did  exist  ?  Next,  whether  the  prisoner  was  a  member  of 
this  society  ?  And  whether  he  was  guilty  of  all  or  of  any  of  the 
overt  acts  laid  in  the  indictment. 

I  cannot  pass  these  papers  without  observing  upon  them,  it  is  for 
you  to  consider,  whether  this  engagement  is  not  to  submit  to  a  com- 
mittee, and  pay  obedience  to  its  commands  in  contradistinction  to  the 
laws  of  the  land.  The  association  Avas  formed  so  far  back  as  the  year 
1790.  The  oath  professes  to  be  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King, 
qualified  with  the  expression  "  so  long  as  I  shall  continue  under  his 
government ;"  you  are  to  decide  whether  the  person  who  swore  it, 
thought  himself  bound  longer,  and  how  far  it  is  explained  by  the 
assertion  of  Weldon,  that  "  if  the  King's  head  were  to  be  taken  off 
to-morrow,  the  obligation  of  this  oath  would  be  at  an  end."  You  are 
to  consider  whether  the  "  National  Convention,"  means  the  convention 
of  France.  You  are  to  consider  what  is  intended,  when  the  question 
is  asked  "  with  whom  are  you  concerned  ?"  and  the  answer  returned, 
"the  National  Convention."  The  words  "to  queal  all  nations  and 
dethrone  all  Kings,"  you  are  to  decide  whether  they  manifest  the 
intentions  of  the  association. 

Another  part  of  the  written  evidence  is  the  parchment  sworn  to 
have  been  found  in  the  possession  of  the  prisoner.  This  parchment 
contains  the  following  form  of  oath :  "  I,  A.  B.,  in  the  presence  of 
God,  do  swear  of  my  own  free  will  and  accord,"  [his  lordship  here 
stated  the  oath  verbatim.^  You  are  to  determine  whether  obedience 
to  the  laws  means  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  whether  courts-martial  are 
such  as  are  recognized  by  law  ?  Part  of  this  oath  throws  a  light  on 
some  of  this  mysterious  system,  and  explains,  in  my  mind,  the  purpose 
of  the  signs  used  by  Defenders — ^for  these  signs  must  be  understood 
that  the  members  of  this  association  may  be  able  to  discover  themselves 
to  each  other.  You,  gentlemen,  are  to  determine  what  F.  and  I. 
mean,  and  what  interpretation  reason  must  deduce  from  the  substance 
of  this  parchment. 

Having  disposed  of  these  parts  of  the  evidence,  which  support  the 
charge  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies,  I  will  take  up  the  first  wit- 
ness who  appeared — I  will  read  the  evidence,  you  will  not  take  it 
explicitly  from  me,  but  you  will  compare  it  with  your  own  notes,  and 
adopt  it  merely  where  it  is  conformable  to  them,  and  consistent  with 
your  own  recollection.  In  stating  it  I  shall  meet  with  the  assistance 
of  my  brothers ;  and  if  I  am  incori'ect,  I  entreat  you  to  set  me  right. 

The  first  witness  is  William  Lawler,  he  is  a  native  of  Ireland,  &:c. 
[Here  his  lordship  read  the  testimony  of  the  witness.] 

He  next  saw  the  prisoner  at  Stoney batter  with  a  society  of  Defenders. 
Hart  introduced  a  young  man  in  order  to  swear  him  a  Defender,  he 
explained  the  principle  of  the  society,  and  told  him  the  intention  of  it 
was  to  assist  the  French  when  they  should  land.  K  you  believe  that 
the  prisoner  was  at  this  meeting,  that  their  designs  were  such  as  the 
witness  described,  and  that  prisoner  swore  this  young  man  according 
to  the  forms  of  the  society,  it  supports  a  substantial  count  in  the 
indictment,  and  you  must  find  him  guilty.  It  is  proved  that  Hart 
pulled  a  book  out  of  his  pocket,  that  he  laid  a  paper  on  it,  that  he 


436  TRIALS   OF 

administered  the  oiith,  that  he  shewed  the  signs  and  described  the 
meaning  of  them.  Wliat  these  signs  are  you  have  seen,  tlie  witness 
learned  the  signs  before  from  Weldon,  when  he  swore  liim  a  Defender, 
and  these  were  the  same  signs  which  Hart  made  use  of  on  that  occasion. 
The  witness  swore — [his  lordship  proceeded  to  recapitulate  the 
evidence.] 

Gentlemen,  you  have  been  desired  to  look  at  the  prisoner  at  the  bar, 
and  to  consider,  whether  from  his  youth,  he  was  likely  to  commit  thei 
crime  with  which  he  stands  charged.  I  also  desire  you  should  look 
at  him,  and  as  to  the  circumstance  of  youth,  I  shall  read  you  a  case 
from  one  of  the  most  respectable  avithorities,  which  elucidates  that 
maxim  of  our  law,  that  youth  shall  not  be  admitted  to  excuse  those 
acts,  the  commission  of  which  is  attended  with  a  malicious  discretion. 
From  Judge  Foster's  report,  a  man  who  has  done  honour  to  himself 
and  the  profession,  I  shall  read  you  the  case  of  Yorke,  who,  at  the 
age  of  ten  years  was  convicted  of  murder. 

[Here  his  lordship  read  the  case,  with  the  opinion  of  the  judges,  &c.] 

The  principle  I  lay  down  is  this,  that  if  you  believe  that  boy  was 
capable  of  judging  of  the  conduct,  which  he  is  proved  to  have  pursued, 
there  is  not  a  single  act  which  is  not  tarnished  with  a  malicious, 
a  treasonable  discretion.  He  knew  he  was  to  support  the  French 
Convention,  in  case  they  should  cause  this  country  to  be  invaded  ;  he 
was  entrusted  with  the  flagitious  importance  of  admitting  Defenders, 
as  a  committee-man ;  he  was  sufficiently  zealous  in  the  cause,  to  I 
prevail  on  the  members  of  his  society  to  bind  themselves  by  oath  to  j 
meet  in  ai'ms  on  the  night  wliicli  he  appointed.  Every  act  of  this 
kind  is  not  the  act  of  puerile  indiscretion,  but  bespeaks  the  compe- 
tency of  a  sensible  mind,  equal  to  the  treason  with  which  he  is  charged. 
You  are  to  consider  also,  whether  these  facts  are  not  strongly  in  favoiir 
of  his  innocence,  if  you  believe  the  testimony  you  have  heard  to  be 
the  consequence  of  a  wicked  and  malevolent  intention  to  take  away 
his  life.  If  you  shall  be  of  this  opinion,  you  must  acquit  him.  It  is 
said,  that  judges  are  very  bad  jurors  ;  you,  gentlemen,  are  the  judges 
in  these  cases,  entrusted  and  constituted  by  the  laws  of  the  country ; 
I  love  to  see  the  freedom  of  the  country  manifested  in  the  discharge 
of  every  trust.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  court  to  be  counsel  for  the 
prisoner,  you  are  the  judges  of  the  fact,  and  you  know  (I  mention  it 
in  consequence  of  an  assertion  at  the  bar,)  whether  or  not  the  prisoner 
has  had  fair  play.  It  is  by  fair  and  candid  observation,  that  a  client 
must  be  defended,  and  if  you  should  be  base  enough  to  suiFer  your 
judgment  to  be  swayed  by  the  direction  of  the  court,  as  jurors  I 
should  despise  you,  as  much  as  I  revere  the  intitution. 

It  is  true,  that  Lawler  is  an  accomplice  ;  if  he  were  not,  lie  never 
could  have  discovered  what  he  explained  of  the  pi'inciples  of  a  society, 
bound  by  oath  to  secresy.  How  can  conspiracy  be  so  totally  disco- 
vered as  by  the  evidence  of  a  conspirator  ?  Yet  the  stability  of  his 
credit  remains  subject  to  the  observation,  that  lie  was  himself  an  I 
associate  in  the  guilt,  which  was  dicovered  by  his  information.  If 
the  testimony  he  gave  were  false  and  unfounded,  it  might  have  been 
easily  overthrown.  He  states  places,  houses,  names,  numbers,  socie- 
ties, days  ;  if  the  prisoner  be  innocent,  what  has  prevented  his  having 


THE    DEFENDERS.  437 

recourse  to  the  common  defence  of  an  alibi  ?  Why  did  he  not  sliew, 
pthat  he  was  absent  from  any  one  of  these  meetings,  by  proving  that  he 
was  engaged  in  any  specific  business,  that  he  was  sick,  or  in  the  country, 
or  employed  in  any  other  possible  manner  ?  What  account  is  given  of 
the  prisoner  ?  I  am  afraid  to  trust  myself  with  the  evidence,  but  I 
trust  I  have  explained  it  in  the  most  moderate,  and  dispassionate 
manner.  The  witness  is  not  a  pretended,  or  a  careless  accomplice,  he 
has  appealed  to  coroborated  facts  for  every  circuinstanee  of  his  con- 
duct, and  assigned  his  reasons  on  every  point  of  his  informations. 

But  the  case  does  not  rest  on  the  testimony  of  Lawler.  Alderman 
James,  swore  he  found  every  circumstance  coinciding  with  the  disco- 
very he  had  made,  not  only  consistent  as  to  the  past  or  the  present, 
but  confirmed  by  what  Lawler  told  him  was  to  happen  in  future.  He 
found  a  meeting  in  the  Liberty,  the  purpose  of  which  was  explained. 
He  also  meets  an  association  or  mob  at  Crumlin,  on  the  day  on  which 
Lawler  informed  him  it  was  to  be  assembled.  Godfrev,  on  arresting 
the  prisoner,  found  a  blunderbuss  and  twenty  ball  cartridges  in  his 
bed-chamber.  You,  gentlemen,  will  ask  yourselves,  what  this  boy  had 
to  do  with  a  blunderbuss  and  ball  cartridges. 

A  juror  asked,  whether  the  uncle  or  any  friend  of  the  prisoner 
was  in  court. 

Lord  Clonjviel, — I  do  not  find  that  he  is,  and  if  he  were,  the 
prisoner's  counsel  would  have  known  whether  they  should  produce 
him.  Where  is  there  any  person  to  give  an  account  of  this  transac- 
tion ;  or  even  to  prove  that  the  prisoner  spent  his  time  at  home,  and 
went  regularly  to  bed? 

Here  Patrick  Hart  was  called,  and  the  Solicitor-General  having 
waived  the  objection  against  producing  a  witness  at  this  stage  of  the 
prosecution,  he  was  sworn.  He  said,  he  believed  the  prisoner  was 
his  nephew,  that  he  was  his  apprentice,  was  a  boy  of  a  good  and 
loyal  disposition,  and  he  did  not  think  him  capable  of  committing  the 
crime  of  high  treason  :  the  prisoner  was  never  from  his  house  later 
than  eleven  o'clock,  the  witness  himself  was  seldom  from  home. 

The  juror  observed,  he  made  the  inquiry  merely  from  motives  of 
humanity,  because  he  was  led  to  think  the  prisoner  was  left  friendless 
and  destitute  at  that  hour  of  the  night. 

Henry  M'Cormick  was  then  sworn:  he  follows  the  tin  business,  he 
knew  the  prisoner  and  his  family,  he  knew  him  since  he  was  appren- 
ticed, he  never  heard  anything  bad  of  the  prisoner  until  this  charge  ; 
his  character  has  been  remarkably  good ;  if  anything  material  had 
occurred  to  its  prejudice  he  should  have  heard  of  it ;  he  knew  the 
prisoner  these  three  3'ears,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  his  father, 
who  lives  in  the  county  Meath. 

Lord  Clonmel My  wish  to  indulge  the  humane  curiosity  of  the 

jury,  and  the  youth  of  the  prisoner  have  induced  me  to  yield  to  the 
production  of  witnesses  at  this  period  of  the  trial.  Had  the  prisoner 
been  a  man  I  should  not  have  done  so,  as  there  is  nothing  which 
would  establish  a  more  dangerous  precedent,  than  the  general  admis- 
sion of  evidence  to  patch  up  a  defence. 

There  are  cases  where  evidence  to  character  is  of  importance, 
when  a  fact  is  disputed,  and  where  oath  is  contradicted  by  oath,  a 
general  good  character  should  often  prove  di'cisive.     But  in  this  case. 


438  TRIALS  OF 

is  there  a  single  fact  sworn  to  by  Lawler,  which  has  been  controverted  ? 
It  is  for  you  to  consider  the  nature  of  that  system  of  depravity,  which 
has  been  proved ;  if  you  believe  there  is  no  such  association,  that 
there  have  been  no  oaths,  that  imputation  has  been  cast  where  there 
is  no  ground  for  it,  you  are  not  like  bigots  and  zealots,  to  say  to 
yourselves,  we  are  Protestants,  and  we  are  the  persons  who  have  been 
marked  out  for  extermination.  You  should  not  give  way  to  such 
impressions,  but  doing  justice  betAveen  God  and  your  country,  you 
are  to  judge,  whether  there  was  such  an  association  ;  whether  those 
papers  existed ;  whether  with  a  traitorous  intention  the  prisoner  was 
a  member  of  the  society  of  Defenders.  You  must  decide  in  your 
consciences  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  test.  This  parchment  was 
found  in  the  possession  of  the  prisoner  ;  but  do  not  therefore  risk  the 
conviction  of  a  boy  on  a  hasty  conclusion  of  a  treasonable  design ; 
banish  all  such  ideas  from  your  minds ;  but  as  rational  men,  do  not 
get  rid  of  your  understandings.  If  you  believe  the  prisoner  guilty 
of  all,  or  any  of  the  overt-acts  laid  in  the  indictment ;  if  you  believe 
that  this  association  existed,  and  that  the  prisoner  was  one  of  its 
members,  and  that  he  acted  the  part  he  is  sworn  to  have  acted,  you 
must  find  him  guilty.  It  is  the  verdict  of  your  conscience  ;  it  is  an 
obedience  to  your  oath.  If  you  believe,  that  he  had  this  parchment 
without  knowing  that  it  was  in  his  possession,  if  you  believe  that  it 
was  found  upon  him,  if  joxi  can  consider  it  innocent,  if  you  believe 
that  it  will  not  bear  the  meaning  which  has  been  affixed  to  it,  if  you 
believe  that  from  any  reasonable  consideration  Lawler  is  not  entitled 
to  credit,  you  ought  to  acquit  the  prisoner.  If  this  be  a  case  where, 
after  all  the  observations  which  have  been  made  on  it,  you  are  still 
in  suspense,  under  such  a  circumstance  you  ought  to  acquit  him.  The 
benignity  of  the  law  imposes  as  a  duty  upon  the  jury,  when  the 
balance  is  equal  between  the  guilt  and  innocence  of  the  accused, 
that  they  should  indulge  the  sentiments  of  mercy.  If  under  all  the 
circumstances  of  this  case,  your  minds  remain  suspended  in  doubt, 
let  your  verdict  be  a  verdict  of  acquittal. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  on  conside- 
ration of  the  evidence  which  has  been  laid  before  you,  I  must  confess, 
that  it  is  with  pain  I  address  you.  You  have  been  told,  that  the 
prisoner  stands  charged  with  two  distinct  species  of  high  treason. 
You  have  been  informed,  that  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  amounts 
to  compassing  his  death.  He  is  not  only  bound  from  interest,  but  he 
is  also  bound  by  oath,  to  support  and  maintain  the  laws  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  country.  You  know,  as  men  possessed  of  common 
understanding,  that  adhei'ing  to  the  King's  enemies  manifests  an 
attempt  to  dethrone  the  King,  and  by  construction  amounts  to  an 
intention  to  take  away  his  life.  I  shall  therefore  confine  myself  to 
the  charge  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  I  shall  not  attempt 
to  define  this  species  of  treason  ;  but  I  do  not  know  any  act  more 
explicit,  than  that  laid  in  the  indictment.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive 
a  plainer  illustration  of  it,  and  instead  of  defining  the  offence,  I  shall 
point  out  the  facts,  as  the  best  substitute  for  a  definition.  I  hope  I 
do  not  differ  from  the  gentlemen  concerned  for  the  prisoner  when  I 
state,  that  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies  is  treason,  tliough  the 
intent  should  prove  abortive.     Thus  an  intercepted  letter  is  evidence 


THE    DEFENDERS.  439 

of  a  treasonable  purpose,  as  was  determined  by  the  court  of  King's 
Bench,  in  the  case  of  Jackson,  whose  treasonable  designs  were  not 
accomplished.  If  nothing  could  be  considered  treason,  which  did  not 
succeed,  no  man  could  be  brought  to  punishment  until  the  govern- 
ment of  this  country  be  subverted,  and  it  would  be  then  too  late  to 
call  him  to  an  account  for  offences  committed  against  a  system  which 
was  annihilated  by  his  exertions.  In  this  case,  taking  the  evidence 
to  be  true,  it  amounts  to  plain,  obvious,  explicit  treason,  as  ever 
entered  into  the  head  of  man.  The  charge  is  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies  ;  I  think  the  whole  of  the  evidence  comes  to  this,  that  the 
pi'isoner  associated  with  Defenders  for  the  purpose  of  dethroning  the 
King,  and  affording  assistance  to  the  powers  of  France.  Did  not  the 
prisoner  become  a  Defender  for  the  purpose  charged  in  the  indict- 
ment ?  The  first  point  you  ought  to  consider  is,  what  are  the  motives 
of  this  association  ?  You  have  heard  two  papers  read  in  evidence  on 
the  tendency  of  which  you  are  to  decide.  Lawler  swears,  that  they 
were  the  instruments  exhibited,  when  he  was  sworn  a  Defender  by 
Weldon.  You  may  observe,  that  one  of  them  is  a  general  precedent; 
it  binds  the  person,  who  swears  to  observe  it,  to  be  obedient  to  all 
committees,  in  all  lawful  matters  ;  part  of  it  professes  to  be  an  oath 
of  allegiance  to  the  crown,  and  as  it  has  been  observed  at  the  bar,  that 
every  subject  is  bound  in  allegiance  by  the  ties  of  natural  justice,  this 
oath,  far  from  ascei'taining  that  the  allegianse  of  the  subject  to  the 
King  should  continue  as  long  as  they  both  shall  live,  abridges  the 
duration  of  it,  by  the  words  "  so  long  as  I  shall  live  under  his  govern- 
ment." If  there  be  anything  ambiguous  in  it,  you  will  find  the 
explanation  in  the  catechism,  the  question  is,  "  what  ai-e  your  designs?  " 
the  answer,  "  to  quell  all  nations  and  dethrone  all  Kings."  It  would 
be  a  farce  to  say,  and  it  has  not  been  attempted  to  be  denied,  that  a 
profession  of  this  kind  is  an  act  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies 
and  assisting  the  powers  of  Erance.  It  is  true  the  prisoner  was  not 
present  when  Lawler  was  sworn,  but  it  has  appeared,  that  he  gave 
him  the  signal  similar  to  that  which  the  witness  has  been  taught  by 
Weldon,  when  he  was  made  a  Defender.  This  is  some  evidence  to 
shew  you  that  Hart  was  privy  to  the  designs  of  this  association,  and 
it  is  a  reasonable  conclusion,  that  every  man  entering  into  a  society 
is  acquainted  with  its  principles.  It  is  plain  from  the  parchment, 
that  the  Defenders  were  associated  with  the  powers  of  France.  See 
what  it  is,  "  And  I  of  my  own  free  will  and  consent,  do  swear  to  be 
true  to  the  present  united  states  of  F.  and  I."  From  the  context  it  is 
impossible  that  this  should  mean  anything  else  than  France  and 
Ireland.  Gentlemen,  in  whose  minds  are  France  and  Ireland  united? 
You  know  they  are  at  actual  war ;  you  must  see  they  were  united  only 
in  the  breasts  of  traitors ;  no  man,  without  the  consent  of  the  crown 
can  unite  them,  and  if  this  be  the  test  of  Defenders,  they  must  all  be 
traitors. 

Gentlemen,  at  a  period  when  the  country  is  involved  in  a  most  dis- 
tressing war,  for  what  purpose  can  those  men  unite  to  take  away 
arms  from  those  who  would  defend  the  kingdom,  in  case  of  an  in- 
vasion, except  for  the  design  of  murder  or  of  treascn  ?  It  is  wasting 
time  to  prove  the  conduct  of  the  prisoner  to  be  treasonable,  and  if 
Defenders  collected  arms  with  the  intent  of  contriving  to  wage  war 


440  TRIALS   OF 

against  the  King,  it  is  impossible  that  any  rational  man  should  hesi- 
tate to  say  that  they  must  be  traitors. 

The  question  for  your  consideration  is,  whether  the  prisoner  was 
a  Defender,  and  whether  he  became  such  for  the  purpose  of  adhering 
to  the  King's  enemies.  This  depends  in  a  great  measure  on  the  evi- 
dence of  Lawler,  and  you  must  be  positive  that  the  prisoner  was  aware 
of  this  intention — Lawler  is  not  positive  that  Hart  was  at  the  meet- 
ing in  Plunket-stveet — he  was  at  Stoneybatter,  where  he  brought  a 
young  man  and  swore  him  a  Defender,  declaring,  when  he  adminis- 
tered the  oath,  that  the  principle  of  the  association  was  to  assist  the 
French  when  they  should  land.  At  this  meeting  it  was,  that  he 
bound  the  members  by  oath  to  assemble  in  arms  on  the  succeeding 
night.  In  fact,  he  appears  perfectly  possessed  of  their  secrets,  and 
acquainted  with  their  proceedings.  The  second  meeting  was  in  the 
Liberty,  where  he  had  a  young  man  whom  he  told  the  witness  was  a 
Defender  :  on  this  night  he  gave  powder  to  the  witness,  and  desired 
liim  to  make  it  into  ball  cartridges.  At  Drury-lane  he  spoke  of  the 
Defenders  intending  to  rise,  in  order  to  massacre  the  Pi'otestants,  so 
that,  if  you  believe  the  evidence,  he  was  not  only  conscious  of  the 
scheme,  but  entered  sincei'ely  into  the  project.  This  will  also  be 
material  in  obviating  the  objection  of  youth  ;  it  bespeaks  a  craft  and 
treachery  beyond  his  years,  and  proves  him  to  be  capable  of  a  treason- 
able discretion.  If  you  believe  Lawler,  the  prisoner  was  a  Defender, 
and  conscious  of  their  designs.  But  the  case  does  not  rest  here  ;  he 
told  Godfrey  he  was  sworn  a  Defender  by  force,  and  had  the  parch- 
ment put  into  his  possession  against  his  consent.  If  a  man  be  way- 
laid and  trepanned,  God  forbid  his  conduct  should  be  criminal ;  but 
if  you  believe  the  evidence,  you  will  find  it  as  certain,  that  he  was  a 
party  to  the  cause,  and  acquainted  with  the  design. 

If  he  had  proved  by  evidence  that  he  was  sworn  by  force,  it  would 
be  conclusive  of  his  innocence  ;  but  the  conduct  of  a  man  sworn  by 
force  would  be,  that  he  v/ould  immediately  disclose  the  circumstance 
to  a  magistrate.  Perhaps  it  may  be  imagined  that  from  the  youth  of 
the  prisoner,  such  an  idea  would  not  arise  in  his  mind ;  but  would  he 
not  at  least,  have  complained  to  his  uncle  of  the  outrage  which  was 
offered  him,  and  been  able  to  give  evidence  of  the  circumstance  on 
this  trial.  I  recollect  that  his  uncle  was  produced,  and  no  question  of 
the  kind  was  asked  him.  You  are  to  judge  whether  the  blunderbuss 
found  in  the  bed-chamber  of  the  prisoner,  was  in  his  possession,  and 
if  you  think  so,  the  circumstance  looks  suspicious.  These  are  the 
most  material  considerations  for  you  to  attend  to  in  this  part  of  the 
case,  namely,  whether  the  prisoner  was  sworn  by  force  ;  and  you  will 
also  observe  how  far  his  conduct  is  consistent  with  this  idea.  If  you 
believe  he  was  voluntarily  sworn  a  Defender,  and  that  this  parchment 
was  entrusted  to  his  care,  it  is  persuasive  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
Lawler's  testimony,  and  the  case  will  not  rest  on  the  oath  of  an  un- 
corroborated approver.  I  admit  it  may  be  perilous  to  convict  on  the 
unconfirmed  testimony  of  an  approver,  but  Lawler  is  not  a  witness 
of  that  description ;  it  is  true  he  was  an  accomplice,  who  made  a 
voluntary  discovery ;  and  the  history  of  all  conspiracie.*  informs  us, 
that  conspiracy  cannot  in  general  be  detected,  except  by  the  infor- 
mation   of  a  conspirator ;  nor  is   there   anything    unnatural  in  the 


THE    DEFENDERS.  441 

position,  that  those  who  betray  the  state,  will  be  ever  ready  to  betray 
each  other.  Whenever,  therefore,  the  evidence  of  an  accomplice  is 
confirmed  by  circumstances,  its  sufficiency  is  inconti'overtible.  Under 
the  law  of  England,  which  requires  two  witnesses  in  cases  of  high 
treason  (whether  the  law  of  Ireland  differs  in  this  respect  from  the 
law  of  England,  is  a  question  on  which  I  shall  deliver  no  opinion), 
the  evidence  of  two  accomplices  is  sufficient  to  convict ;  and,  in  my 
judgment,  the  evidence  of  one  accomplice,  corroborated  by  circum- 
stances, affords  a  more  rational  groixnd  for  conviction.  If  you  think 
the  prisoner  so  extremely  young,  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  nature 
of  his  conduct,  you  ought  to  acquit  him,  and  if  you  shall  do  so  on  this 
principle,  I  think  you  would  do  well  to  mention  it.  If  you  think  that 
his  having  been  forced  to  become  a  Defender  is  a  falsehood,  the  de- 
fence itself  is  evidence  of  craft,  and  you  ought  to  find  him  guilty. 
If  any  doubt  remains  in  your  mind,  it  is  your  duty  to  acquit  him. 

Mr.  Baron  George. — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  shall  trouble  you 
with  very  few  observations.  I  shall  only  remark  on  the  chai'ge 
against  the  prisoner,  of  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  If  you  be- 
lieve he  became  a  Defender  with  an  intent  of  assisting  the  King's 
enemies,  and  dethroning  the  King,  or  for  either  of  these  purposes,  you 
ought  to  find  him  guilty.  As  to  the  species  of  treason  he  is  sworn  to 
have  committed,  I  shall  observe  that  the  Defenders  were  associated 
for  treasonable  purposes,  and  that  the  prisoner  became  a  member  of 
their  society  with  full  knowledge  of  their  designs ;  that  these  designs 
wei'e  treasonable,  you  will  find  from  the  papers  which  were  read  in 
evidence ;  from  one  of  them  you  will  discover,  that  the  Defenders 
were  associated  with  the  French  Convention  to  dethrone  all  kings ; 
you  will  find  the  origin  of  this  society  so  far  back  as  January,  1790. 
It  appears  they  had  committees  and  officers  whom  they  were  sworn 
to  obey.  From  the  parchment  you  will  find  them  bound  by  oath  to 
be  true  to  France  and  Ireland ;  you  will  find  them  bound  not  to  as- 
sociate with  robbers,  and  still  more,  not  to  give  evidence  in  a  court 
of  justice  against  a  member  of  their  own  society.  If  they  were  not 
associated  for  robbery,  where  is  the  necessity  for  secrecy  ?  If  it  be 
plain  they  were  not  associated  in  order  to  commit  robbery,  you  then 
will  ask  yourselves  whether  they  were  not  united  by  treason  ?  All 
the  legal  powers  of  France  and  Ireland  are  at  war,  and  the  two 
covmtries  are  united  only  in  the  bi'easts  of  traitors.  If  you  are  satis- 
fied that  the  society  of  Defendei's  is  a  treasonable  association,  you  are 
next  to  consider  whether  the  prisoner  was  one  of  that  association. 
The  testimony  of  Lawler  and  Godfrey,  corroborated  by  written  evi- 
dence, has  been  laid  before  you.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  evidence 
of  an  accomplice  ought  to  be  received  with  cavition  ;  but  whenever  a 
jury  is  satisfied  with  the  truth  of  it,  it  is  sixfficient  to  convict ;  but  it 
ought  to  be  received  with  circumspection,  as  it  is  often  admitted  from 
necessity ;  because  if  no  such  evidence  could  be  adduced,  the  greatest 
crimes  might  be  committed  with  impunity,  and  no  nation  could  be 
secure  from  treason,  which  shuns  the  light  and  is  fostei-ed  in  obscurity. 
Some  reflections  have  been  cast  on  the  moral  character  of  Lawler ; 
surely  no  man  who  obeys  the  dictates  of  religion  can  be  a  traitor,  and 
calling  this  man  infamous  is  stating  no  more  than  what  he  himself 
has  admitted.     Still  there  is  something  particular  with  respect  to  the 


442  TRIALS   OF 

testimony  of  this  witness, which  adds  a  degree  of  credibility  not  annexed 
to  the  testimony  of  an  accomplice.  The  counsel  for  the  prisoner  have 
been  instructed  in  every  circumstance  of  what  he  has  proved,  because 
the  evidence  of  this  man,  given  on  a  former  trial,  almost  similar  to  the 
present,  has  been  published,  and  yet  no  man  can  be  found  to  contro- 
vert what  he  has  sworn.  His  testimony  was  disclosed  months  before 
the  prisoner  was  put  on  his  trial,  and  yet  it  remains  uncontradicted. 
Consider  whether  it  is  within  the  compass  of  ingenuity  to  fabricate 
such  a  system,  and  to  support  it  with  consistency !  This  should  be  a 
circumstance  for  your  consideration,  if  his  evidence  stood  alone  on 
its  own  credibility,  uncorroborated  by  circumstances,  but  it  is  con- 
firmed by  subsequent  facts  corresponding  with  his  information.  Wlien 
Godfrey  went  to  arrest  the  prisoner,  he  received  directions  to  search 
him,  and  in  his  pocket  he  found  the  parchment  which  has  been  read. 
You  will  consider  whether  he  became  possessed  of  it  in  consequence 
of  the  accident  which  he  stated  ;  you  must  consider  how  far  it  is  pro- 
bable, that  a  man  never  from  home  at  a  later  hour  than  eleven  o'clock, 
should  be  seized  by  force  and  sworn  in  the  manner  he  described, 
and  have  this  muniment  of  treason  entrusted  to  his  discretion.  An 
honest  man  might  be  involuntarily  sworn,  but  the  obligation  of  such 
an  oath  is  nugatory  and  vain,  and  it  would  be  not  only  the  duty,  but 
the  inclination  of  any  honest  man  to  withdraw  himself  from  such  an 
association,  and  to  manifest  by  his  future  conduct,  an  abhorrence  of 
its  principles.  It  appears  suspicious,  that  in  the  bedchamber  of  the 
prisoner  were  found  implements  with  which  that  oath  was  to  be  car- 
ried into  execution.  This  circumstance  gives  an  additional  weight 
and  probability  to  the  evidence,  which  it  would  not  otherwise  possess. 
You  are  to  receive  the  testimony  of  Lawler  with  caution,  but  you  are 
not  at  liberty  to  reject  it.  You  are  bound  by  every  duty,  human  and 
divine,  to  investigate  the  truth.  You  are  to  consider  the  truth  and 
the  justice  of  the  case.  Other  considerations  are  in  other  hands.  You 
have  a  sacred  trust  to  discharge  to  the  public.  If  no  doubt  remains 
in  your  minds,  you  must  find  the  prisoner  guilty  ;  if  you  have  any, 
you  ought  to  acquit  him. 

The  Jury  retired  at  half-past  one  o'clock  on  Thursday  morning, 
and,  in  about  ten  minutes,  returned  with  a  verdict,  finding  the  prisoner 
—GUILTY. 

Friday,  February  26th. 

Edward  Brady  was  put  to  the  bar  for  the  purpose  of  being  tried 
upon  the  indictment  for  high  treason  found  against  him  (  Vid.  ante,  p. 
348.) — After  the  pannel  was  called  over,  it  was  intimated  to  the 
Attorney- General  that  the  prisoner  was  disposed  to  acknowledge  his 
offence,  and  throw  himself  upon  the  mercy  of  the  crown. 

Mr.  Attornet- General. — My  lords,  I  understand  that  the  pri- 
soner looks  to  the  crown  for  mercy.  Sure  I  am  that  nothing  can  fill 
the  royal  breast  with  more  true  delight  than  to  extend  mercy  where 
anything  like  repentance  appears ;  and  the  officers  who  prosecute  for 
the  crown  will  feel  much  pleasure  in  assisting  its  benignity  under 
such  circumstances.  The  prisoner  had  early  manifested  a  disposition 
to  repentance ;  but  now  and  again  his  wavering  mind  fell  back,  and 
did  not  adopt  any  settled  determination.     My  lords,  I  shall  not  pro- 


THE    DEFENDERS.  443 

ceed  upon  this  trial,  and  therefore  move  your  lordships  that  the 
prisoner  be  remanded. 

The  prisoner  was  accordingly  remanded,  and  directions  were 
given  the  sheritf,  that  he  might  be  without  irons,  if  he  coidd  be  safely 
kept. 

Upon  a  subsequent  day  the  prisoner  was  brought  up  and  his 
counsel  moved,  that  his  trial  be  postponed  until  the  next  commission. 

Mr.  Attorney- General. — My  lords,  I  consent  to  this  motion, 
and  that  the  object  of  it  may  not  be  misunderstood,  I  mean  to  have 
a  pardon  made  out  for  the  prisoner,  so  that  he  may  plead  it  at  the 
next  commission. 

Saturday,  February  27th. 

The  grand  juries  of  the  city  and  county  of  Dublin  were  called  over. 

Thomas  Kennedy  and  Patrick  Hart  were  put  to  the  bar.  Their 
indictments  were  read  and  they  were  severally  asked,  why  judgments 
of  death  and  execution  should  not  be  awarded  against  them  according 
to  law? 

Thomas  Kennedy I  hope  from  the  recommendation  of  the  jury 

that  you  will  have  compassion  upon  me,  and  I  hope  for  a  long  day. 
A  man  who  was  not  recommended  had  twelve  weeks. 

Patrick  Hart You  have  been  so  merciful  to  Brady,  who  is  charged 

with  the  same  offence,  that  I  hope  for  mercy. 

Lord  Clonmel You,  Thomas  Kennedy,  and  you,  Patrick   Hart, 

and  each  of  you  stand  convicted  upon  indictments  for  high  treason 
under  the  statute  25  Ed.  III.  in  compassing  and  imagining  the  death 
of  our  most  gracious  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  ;  and  also  adhering  to 
the  King's  enemies.  A  plain  overt  act  of  the  intention  of  levying 
war,  or  bringing  war  upon  the  kingdom,  or  of  inducing  the  enemies 
to  invade  it,  is  settled  to  be  an  overt  act  of  compassing  the  King's 
death.  Acts  such  as  I  shall  mention,  which  appeared  from  the  evi- 
dence to  have  been  committed  by  you,  never  have  been  doubted  to  be 
overt  acts  of  treason  ; — nor  is  it  necessary,  that  you  should  have 
carried  your  schemes  into  execution,  because  that  would  have  defeated 
the  justice,  by  which  you  have  been  brought  to  trial.  You  have  each 
been  found  guilty  by  separate  juries  of  the  most  respectable  citizens 
in  this  metropolis.  You  have,  each  of  you,  taken  all  the  advantage, 
that  the  peculiar  beneficence  of  our  law  has  granted  to  persons  in 
your  situation,  and  you  have  challenged  such  persons,  as  either  from 
secret  knowledge,  or  personal  dislike,  or  any  other  motives,  you 
objected  to.  You  have  had  counsel  assigned  to  you  of  your  own 
choosing,  and  you  have  had  a  long  time  to  prepare  for  your  defence. 
You  have  had  the  assistance  of  your  counsel  in  the  amplest  way. 
You  have  been  prosecuted  as  your  own  counsel  have  admitted,  with 
moderation  ;  with  moderation,  decency,  and  temper.  You  have  been 
tried  I  hope,  with  calmness  ;  with  patience ;  with  humanity  ;  and 
justice  by  the  court ;  with  every  advantage  to  each  of  you,  which  the 
law  and  constitution  of  the  country  allow,  and  every  indulgence 
which  the  coui't  could  extend,  or  which  you  desired,  during  the  course 
of  a  long  examination,  which  was  observed  upon  with  the  utmost 
latitude  by  counsel. 


444  TRIALS    OF 

The  evidence  upon  which  you  have  been  found  guilty  left  not  the 
least  doubt  in  the  breasts  of  either  of  these  juries.  If  there  had 
been  a  doubt  in  either,  they  were  expressly  charged,  in  case  of  such 
doubt,  to  acquit ;  and  the  recommendation  they  gave  shews  the 
humane  temper  of  their  minds ; — for  they  have  annexed  their 
reason  that  it  was  not  on  account  of  any  doubt  of  the  guilt,  but  of 
your  youth. 

You  have  been  found  guilty,  each  of  you,  of  uniting  yourselves 
with  a  treasonable  association  in  this  country  ;  the  objects  of  which  are 
avowed,  open,  and  plain,  to  persons  of  the  most  inferior  understanding ; 
of  one  infinitely  less  than  you  have  disclosed  in  the  few  words  you 
have  uttered.  Upon  each  of  you  was  found  written  evidence,  which 
cannot  be  doubted  ;  written  evidence  that  proves  your  guilt,  and 
speaks  for  itself.  It  professes  to  be  a  voluntary  oath  taken  to  support ; 
not  the  law  of  the  land — but  the  National  Convention  of  France,  for 
so  the  jury  have  found  it.  The  object  of  it  was  to  destroy,  not  only 
his  Majesty,  but  all  kings  ;  to  be  true  only  to  their  own  association. 
These  two  papers,  the  oath  and  the  catechism,  carry  upon  the  face  of 
them  intrinsic  evidence  of  your  guilt,  and  shew  clearly  what  your 
object  was,  that  it  was  to  support  a  French  invasion,  if  the  French 
should  invade  this  country.  It  was  proved  to  the  clearest  conviction 
of  the  court,  not  one  of  whom  ever  mentioned  an  opinion  before  while 
it  was  possible  it  might  do  you  harm  with  the  jury,  that  you  were 
first  members  of  the  Telegraphic  Society ;  you  then  passed  under 
another  denomination,  grounded  on  the  affectation  of  philosophy,  the 
Philanthropic  Society.  Then  you  became  Defenders,  and  you  dis- 
closed their  object.  It  is  manifest,  that  you  knew  by  what  ceremonies 
they  were  instituted ;  you  knew  they  must  continue,  if  at  all,  by 
robbery  ;  by  house-breaking  ;  by  plunder  ;  by  treachery  ;  by  murder 
and  by  treason.  All  these  wicked,  and  flagitious  offences  are  com- 
prehended under  the  name  Defender,  as  is  manifested  by  what  is  proved 
upon  you.  Your  system  was  to  go  out  with  such  arms  as  you  could 
get,  or  had  got  by  robbery,  or  other  means,  to  plunder  houses  in  the 
dead  of  the  night  and  during  the  innocent  sleep  of  the  inhabitants. 
You  bound  people  by  oaths  to  bring  their  arms,  for  the  purpose  of 
procuring  more.  It  has  been  proved,  that  you  made  subscriptions  to 
buy  gunpowder  for  the  same  purpose,  and  when  you  had  collected 
arms  in  this  mannei",  it  was  proved,  that  you  intended  to  assist  the 
French,  now  at  open  war  ;  that  you  intended  to  assist  them  in  the 
invasion  of  this  country,  when  they  should  attack  it ;  and  it  was  proved 
upon  you,  that  the  pvirpose  of  the  association,  wicked,  and  flagitious, 
and  rebellious  as  it  is,  formed  in  the  very  bowels  of  this  coimtiy,  was 
to  have  made  a  general  rising  ;  to  have  massacred  the  Protestants  of 
this  country  ;  to  have  taken  the  corn  and  provisions  ;  to  have  taken 
the  forts  ;  plundered  the  banks  ;  seized  the  arsenal ;  and  made  an 
attack  upon  every  fortress  in  the  kingdom  !  To  assist  the  French  in 
the  invasion  of  this  your  native  country,  and  you  were  to  become  the 
masters  of  the  island.  It  was  proved  upon  you  in  the  clearest  way 
and  in  the  most  consistent,  I  ever  heard.  You  were  assembled,  not 
accidentally,  in  this  place,  or  the  other.  It  was  proved,  that  you 
were  in  Cork-street ;  that  you  were  at  the  assembly  in  Drury-lane ; 
that  you  were  at  Stoneybatter  ;  that  you  were  in   Bari-ack-street ;  at 


THE    DEFENDERS.  445 

Plunket-street ;  tit  Crumlin.  In  all  these  several  places  described 
with  accuracy,  and  pointed  out  with  such  clearness,  that  there  was 
scarce  a  tittle  stated  by  Lawler,  that  might  not  be  contradicted,  if  not 
founded  in  fact,  and  that  is  not  fortified  by  such  circumstances,  as 
scepticism  cannot  disbelieve,  nor  rational  men  deny  their  assent. 
Twenty-three  are  stated  to  have  been  at  one  meeting  ;  more  at 
another  It  was  sworn,  that  one  of  you  declai-ed  there  were  4000 
Defenders  in  Dublin,  and  the  use  was  to  have  been  made  of  them 
justifies  the  assertion.  If  you  could  collect  them,  the  system  was  artful, 
and  practicable,  and  too  likely  to  succeed.  Numbers  of  your  age 
were  selected,  I  take  for  granted,  and  even  that  appeared,  by  persons 
elder  than  yourself;  you  wei-e  made  committee-men  to  give  you  a 
consequence  in  your  own  minds ;  you  were  empowei'ed  to  swear  new 
Defenders,  to  give  you  a  degree  of  active  importance.  You,  and 
each  of  you  were  active  persons  in  that  part  which  was  most  fitted 
for  you  ;  you  could  read,  and  write,  and  you  were  under  the  conduct 
of  Burke,  a  man  notoi'iously  of  infamous  character,  who  had  circu- 
lated his  doctrines  to  his  own  disgrace,  but  not  yet  distruction, 
publishing  with  his  name  atheistical  treatises  to  justify  his  conduct. 
And  this  was  the  artful  expedient  made  use  of,  by  instructing  you  not 
to  believe  the  power  of  the  Almighty,  or  the  doctrine  of  rewards  and 
punishments,  to  make  you  as  wicked  as  human  creatures  are  capable 
of  being,  and  then  alleging,  that  you  are  not  to  be  believed,  if  one 
of  the  party  should  give  information  against  the  others.  The  system 
was  conformable  to  the  French  philosophy ;  "  I  will  debauch  their 
principles  and  their  minds,  and  if  any  man  be  weak  enough,  or  in 
the  general  sense  of  mankind  honest  enough,  to  betray  us,  we  will 
shew  he  is  not  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath,  having  denied  the  exis- 
tence of  a  God,  which  we  had  taught  him  to  do,"  and  thus  you  would 
protect  one  piece  of  wickedness  by  another. 

Again,  see  another  dangerous  part  of  the  system.  They  resorted 
to  the  youngest  pei'sons  they  could  find,  active  and  fit  for  their  pur- 
pose. "  We  will  put  them,"  said  the  advisers,  "  into  the  departments 
that  will  gratify  their  young  pride,  and  the  unthinking  youth  shall  be 
made  committee-men  ;  they  shall  consider  themselves  oflicers,  and  if 
they  be  detected,  their  tender  years  will  melt  the  hearts  of  the  j  ury, 
who  will  sacrifice  justice  to  the  known  humanity  of  the  country." 

Here,  then,  was  the  second  part  of  the  artful  and  wicked  wisdom  by 
which  this  system  of  treachery  was  carried  on.  Burke  was  to  be  one 
of  ten  ;  it  was  proved  that  each  of  the  ten  was  to  levy  ten,  and  each 
of  the  last  ten  was  to  levy  five  more,  thus  to  make  a  body  of  six 
hundred  :  each  man  was  in  some  degree,  in  point  of  justice  and  good 
faith,  responsible  for  the  persons  levied  by  himself.  It  was  sworn  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  court  and  jury,  that  the  design  was,  that  by 
dressing  these  men,  to  the  amount  of  one  hundred,  in  scarlet  uniforms, 
to  persuade  the  citizens  into  a  belief  that  the  army  was  with  the 
insurgents,  and  by  this  imposition  and  craft  to  plunder  the  bank,  and 
secure  the  arsenal.  Was  that  absurd  ?  No  such  thing.  What  did 
you  want  to  effect  it  ?  Nothing  but  ammunition  and  arms.  It  was 
sworn  that  you  tried  other  means,  that  of  robbing  the  houses  of  indi- 
viduals ;  and,  as  the  strongest  proof  against  you,  upon  you,  Kennedy, 
were  found  the  oath  and  the  catechism ;  and  upon  you,  Hart,  when 


446  TRIALS  OF 

surprised  early  in  the  morning,  was  found  a  parchment  writing,  be- 
ginning, "  I,  A.  B.,  do  swear  to  be  true  to  France  and  Ireland,"  for 
so  the  jury  have  interpreted  it,  and  then  it  proceeds  in  the  same 
traitorous  language  as  those  found  in  the  possession  of  you,  Kennedy. 
A  blundei'buss  and  twenty  ball  cartridges  were  also  found. 

But  it  is  said,  why,  this  is  impossible,  to  make  a  rebellion  of  boys. 
See  what  the  answer  plainly  is.  It  is  admitted  that  there  has  been 
a  conspiracy  ;  that  it  has  consisted  of  great  numbers,  and  yet,  hitherto, 
few  or  none  have  been  secured,  through  the  influence  of  these  illegal 
and  detestable  oaths,  administered  by  boys.  Does  it  not,  then,  bring 
this  unhappy  reflection  painful  to  every  mind,  that  it  is  a  con- 
spiracy from  which  we  cannot  preserve  the  youth  of  the  kingdom.  It 
has  gone  so  far  as  to  corrupt  our  apprentices  ;  and  it  is  not  poverty, 
distress,  or  oppression,  which  has  given  rise  to  it.  There  is  not  a 
man  sworn  against  as  forming  this  conspiracy  who  does  not  appear 
to  have  had  a  trade  and  means  of  living — a  trade  and  means  of 
living,  depending  upon  the  elegancies  of  elevated  life,  and  not  by 
the  necessities  of  society.  One  appeared  to  be  a  carver,  another  a 
gilder,  another  a  glass-cutter,  &c.  There  have  been  others  of  more 
adult  years,  connected  with  societies,  not  a  great  way  removed  from 
guilt  in  their  breasts  and  minds,  though  not  indicted  for  what  you 
have  been  tried,  and  found  guilty.  This  is  not  a  subject  taken  up  on 
a  sudden :  you  have  had  the  same  able  and  legal  assistance,  as  to 
one  of  your  counsel,  whom  you  named  four  months  ago.  There  was 
not  a  word  of  Lawler's  evidence  which  was  not  known  for  some 
months  ;  it  has  even  become  the  subject  of  publication.  Yet  not  one 
word  of  it  has  been  contradicted  to  this  hour  by  any  man,  by  friend 
or  parent.  It  appears  you  are  not  abandoned  children,  or  forlorn, 
without  some  persons  to  look  after  you.  Your  guilt  has  not  depended 
upon  the  mere  assertion  of  one  man.  On  the  contrary,  his  evidence 
stands  supported  by  circumstances  and  facts,  that  cannot  mislead  any 
mind  in  the  progress  of  truth.  It  appears  that  Lawler  said,  "go 
take  Kennedy  ;  you  will  find  the  Defender's  oath  and  catechism  in 
his  pocket."  He  had  seen  it  frequently  before,  and  thought  it  pro- 
bable it  might  be  found  where  he  saw  it  deposited  ;  and  there  is  no 
attempt  to  show  any  sort  of  compulsion  or  contrivance,  by  which 
those  papers  were  put  in  by  Lawler,  or  any  person  for  him.  When 
you,  Kennedy,  were  arrested,  these  papers  were  found  upon  you ;  so 
that  not  only  what  Lawler  said,  as  to  the  past  tense  but  also  the 
present,  is  fortified  by  diflerent  facts.  And  when  you.  Hart,  were 
arrested,  this  parchment  was  found  in  your  possession  ;  not,  indeed, 
from  any  information  given  by  Lawler — it  does  not  appear  that  he 
knew  of  it — but  it  is  evidence  to  establish  one  of  the  facts  charged 
against  you  as  a  Defender,  which  the  jury  have  found  you  to  be. 

I  shall  speak  a  word  of  your  age.  From  the  necessity  of  support- 
ing human  society,  and  of  preventing  flagitious  crimes  from  being 
unpunivshed,  when  perpetrated  by  youth,  coiu'ts  have  resorted  to 
printed  cases,  where  judges  have  determined  that  younger  persons 
than  you,  perpetrating  crimes,  ought  to  be  punished.  In  the  case  of 
murder,  a  person  of  the  age  of  ten  years  was  sentenced  to  capital 
punishment,  and  the  reasoning  of  that  case  will  go  down  to  the 
lowest  age,  where  a  malicious  mischievous  intention  appears.     And, 


I 


THE    DEFENDERS.  447 

in  ti'uth,  it  would  be  absurd  if  it  were  otherwise.  It  would  be  to 
say,  that  certain  classes  of  people  in  society  are  able  to  commit  the 
worst  offences,  and  yet  the  law  cannot  I'each  them.  By  your  industry 
and  activity,  if  the  evidence  be  true,  as  the  jury  have  sworn  they 
thought  it,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  it,  it  is  now  to  be  taken 
for  granted,  that  you  thoroughly  understood  every  part  of  the  wicked 
treason  you  were  embarked  in.  I  mention  this  to  show,  that  there 
is  no  part  of  society  that  is  not  the  object  of  legal  punishment,  even 
to  the  forfeiture  of  life. 

This  being  a  short  view  of  the  facts,  recapitulated  in  the  manner 
usually  stated  by  persons  in  my  situation,  I  must  now  put  you  in 
mind  of  the  horrid  offence  and  wickedness  of  which  you  have  been 
guilty.  I  suppose  there  is  no  rational  creature  that  has  heard  what 
I  have  stated,  who  will  not  go  away  convinced  that  the  evidence  is 
plain,  clear,  and  coercive.  There  has  not  been  a  single  fact  contra- 
dicted, or  explained  in  your  favour,  and  that  the  matter  of  these 
papers  found  in  your  possession  is  most  flagitious  and  detestable,  can- 
not be  denied. 

The  salvation  of  this  kingdom  has,  under  the  providence  of  God, 
been  secured  by  the  information  given  by  one  of  yourselves,  by  which 
your  bloody  and  treasonable  designs  have  been  defeated  and  pre- 
vented. For  if  you  had  succeeded  in  your  abominable  projects  against 
this  kingdom,  instead  of  its  having  been,  in  the  time  of  a  ruinous  and 
calamitous  war  to  every  other  part  of  the  earth,  the  most  fortunate 
spot  on  the  globe  until  1790,  it  would  have  been"the  miserable  scene 
of  carnage,  like  France,  the  place  from  whence  you  expected  friends 
and  assistance. 

The  pmiishment  of  our  benign  law  not  being  for  vengeance,  but  to 
deter  others  by  example,  has  led  me  to  expatiate  upon  the  evidence 
and  the  nature  of  your  crime,  your  situation  and  circumstances,  and 
the  danger  to  which  the  kingdom  was  exposed,  if  the  design  had  not 
been  providentially  revealed  by  the  information  of  the  prosecutor, 
more  at  large  than,  perhaps,  I  would  have  in  another  case.  But  it  is 
right,  that  in  the  publication  of  this  trial,  the  eye  of  the  public  should 
be  open  to  a  full  view  of  their  own  situation.  Persons  who  have 
been  involved  in  these  conspiracies  should  guard  themselves  against 
the  mischiefs  of  high  treason,  by  being  publicly  apprised  of  the 
punishment  attending  upon  it. 

You  have,  in  another  instance,  wounded  the  peace  of  society  ex- 
tremely. You  have,  in  the  progress  of  your  wretched  and  treasonable 
pursuits,  thrown  a  cloud  of  suspicion  over  your  connexions  and  your 
associates,  which  can  never  be  dispelled  but  by  their  most  explicit 
good  conduct ;  for  if  any  person  formed  the  most  distant  conjecture 
of  your  views,  every  such  person  has  been  guilty  of  a  gross  misprision 
by  not  disclosing  them,  so  that  they  might  be  best  guarded  against, 
defeated,  or  prevented. 

It  is  a  painful  part  of  my  duty  which  yet  remains,  and  that  is,  to 
pronounce  the  dreadful  judgment  of  the  law  upon  you,  which  has  been 
considered  by  the  court. 

[His  Lordship  then  passed  sentence  upon  the  prisoners,  in  the 
manner  usual  in  such  cases,  after  which,  the  prisoners  were  remanded.] 


448  TRIALS   OF 

After  the  prisoners  were  removed,  his  Lordship  addressed  the 
grand  j  uries. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Gentlemen  of  both  grand  juries,  in  addressing 
you,  I  mean  only  to  give  you  that  preference  which  the  law  has 
given  you,  by  thinking  you  the  first  auditors  of  what  has  passed. 
What  I  said,  and  mean  to  say,  if  I  did  not  think  the  occasion  called 
upon  me  to  speak  to  you,  and  through  you  to  the  people  now  assem- 
bled, I  might  well  be  excused  from  this  trouble.  It  is  a  painful 
task.  I  hope  in  God  it  may  be  attended  with  the  consequence  I  ex- 
pect. I  thought  it  might  involve  considerations  of  too  great  extent, 
to  comprehend  it  in  the  lessons  I  was  obliged  to  give  the  prisoners. 
I,  therefore,  restrained  myself,  meaning  to  address  you.  Many  are 
here  collected  of  different  ages  and  various  degrees  ;  some  entrusted 
with  the  highest  places  which  the  constitution  knows.  I  thought  if 
anything  could  be  done,  by  calling  them  to  a  sense  of  their  situation, 
this  would  be  the  most  useful  hour  of  my  life.  This  subject,  of  which 
you  have  heard  so  much,  is  a  prosecution,  conducted  by  the  servants 
of  the  state,  in  the  manner  which  you  have  observed,  and  involved 
in  the  length  of  time  you  have  perceived.  My  objects  are  two-fold. 
First,  to  shew  what  I  think  (and  it  is  a  satisfaction  to  find  that  my 
ideas  correspond  with  those  of  my  brethren)  of  the  probability  of  the 
charge  made  by  Lawler  ;  and  next,  if  I  can,  to  exhort  you  to  a  manly 
exercise  of  your  duty  as  magistrates  and  subjects. 

Gentlemen,  as  far  back  as  the  year  1790,  and  several  years  pre- 
ceding, I  suppose  there  was  not  a  country  upon  earth,  that  felt  itself 
in  so  fortunate  a  progress  of  prosperity  and  advancement  as  Ireland. 
At  that  period  commenced,  and  it  is  so  stated  by  written  evidence, 
the  institution  of  Defenders,  though,  perhaps,  under  another  name, 
for  the  oath  states  their  institution  in  1790,  with  improvements  since. 
The  country  has  been  since  involved  in  three  of  those  calamities,  that 
each  of  you,  who  do  your  duty  to  God,  pray  to  be  delivered  from, 
namely,  from  "  sedition,  privy  conspiracy,  and  rebellion."  1  am 
speaking  of  facts  and  notoriety.  It  began  with  sedition,  and  the 
simple  and  inspired  line  which  I  have  quoted,  with  a  knowledge  of 
the  human  heart,  makes  the  other  two  follow,  viz.,  privy  conspiracy 
and  rebellion.  It  is  from  these  I  hope  God  will  deliver  you.  At  that 
time,  a  fugitive  traitor,  Hamilton  Rowan,  who  had  for  sedition  been 
imprisoned,  and  was  connected  with  that  self-executed  traitor,  Jack- 
son, and  some  other  fugitive  felons,  whose  names  it  is  not  necessary 
to  mention  had  begun  to  vitiate  and  debauch  the  minds  of  the  country, 
and  from  that  time  to  this  it  has  never  rested — French  names  and 
pi'oceedings  were  adopted — treason  was  the  object — murder  the  means. 
In  1791,  William  Lawler,  who  has  since  appeared  as  a  prosecutor, 
having  learned  a  trade,  by  which  he  appears  to  have  got  a  reasonable 
and  comfortable  subsistence,  left  this  country  and  went  to  England, 
where  his  father  had  been ;  he  enlisted  as  a  soldier,  and  having  de- 
serted from  that  situation,  changed  his  name.  I  will  shew  you,  that 
love  of  life,  the  dearest  object  of  human  creatures,  has  been  the  origi- 
nal director  of  this  man's  conduct ;  that  he  discovered  his  crimes  to 
save  his  life,  and  not  before  he  thought  his  life  was  in  danger,  and 
that  not  from  the  law,  but  his  own  associates. 

He  went  to  London,  and  there  under  the  name  of  Wright,  he   got 


THE    DEFENDERS.  449 

into  one  of  their  treasonable  corresponding  societies.  I  speak  from 
his  own  description  of  it.  I  am  not  a  judge  of  that  country,  nor  am 
I  to  try  any  of  them.  But  his  description  was,  that  they  Avere  to 
force  a  reform  by  arms  brought  to  the  throne.  He  was  asked,  if  he 
had  room  to  conceal  one  hundred  arms,  for  that  it  was  as  necessary  for 
them  to  learn  the  use  of  arms  as  well  as  the  society  of  Sheffield,  who 
had  it  in  contemplation  to  force  a  radical  reform. 

Now  take  up  the  first  part.  Is  it  improbable,  that  men  in  the 
army  should  be  resorted  to?  The  thing  speaks  itself.  Is  it  improbable, 
that  a  man,  who  desei-ted,  should  change  his  name  to  prevent  his 
being  detected  ?  The  thing  speaks  itself.  While  in  London,  he  is 
directed  to  a  man  of  notorious  name,  Daniel  Isaac  Eaton,  who  recom- 
mends him  to  Rowan,  at  that  time  not  thi'own  into  gaol.  Lawler 
got  a  letter  under  the  name  of  Wright  to  Eowan,  to  whom  he  told 
his  real  name,  and  the  very  masque  was  a  sort  of  recommendation  to 
such  a  man  as  Rowan.  I  speak  without  reserve  of  a  man,  who  has 
quitted  the  kingdom,  and  stands  outlawed  and  attainted  of  treason. 
Was  it  likely  he  should  object  on  account  of  the  fiction  of  name  ? 
He  makes  Lawler  a  present ;  of  what  ?  Of  a  print  of  Thomas  Paine, 
the  saint  of  rebellion,  anarchy  and  murder !  Proud  of  his  present, 
he  follows  Rowan  into  the  gaol  of  Newgate  : — there  Rowan  discourses 
with  him  upon  the  propriety  of  having  corresponding  societies  here, 
similar  to  that  in  London.  Is  there  a  tittle  of  that  inprobable  ? — or 
at  which  the  mind  revolts  ?  That  a  person,  coming  into  this  country 
should  endeavour  to  circulate  those  opinions  and  principles  he  adopted 
there.  "  Get  six  staunch  men,"  says  Row^an,  "  whom  you  can  depend 
upon.  I  would  rather  have  them  than  six  hundred  others  ;  see  what 
has  happened  to  me ;  I  have  been  discovered  by  those  who  were  not 
staunch."*  If  this  was  idle  talk,  founded  in  imagination  and  wicked 
lies,  it  might  be  contradicted  by  those  who  then  attended  Newgate. 
Lawler  next  becomes  a  member  of  a  society,  called  the  Telegraphic, 
which  opens,  by  degrees,  more  largely  into  the  Philanthropic.  These 
were  headed  by  whom  ?  By  Burke  ;  a  man,  notoriously  of  infamous 
character,  expelled  from  the  university  for  abominable  blasplicmy 
and  impiety.  Where  is  Burke  ?  Why  not  contradict  what  Lawler 
said  ?  No  person  pretends  to  say,  he  is  not  in  existence.  But  it  may 
be  said,  he  is  afraid.  Why  is  he  afraid  ? — he  ought  not  to  be  afraid, 
if  he  be  an  honest  man.  If  he  be  an  honest  man,  why  not  contra- 
dict this  account  ?  But  it  does  not  depend  upon  Burke  alone.  Lawler 
states  a  number  of  persons  by  name.  He  was  himself  a  zealous 
Defender;  his  religion  Protestant,  and  he  frequently  attended  the 
Methodists.  He  was  apparently  an  enthusiast  to  his  purposes ;  going 
as  far  as  the  Defenders  did  ;  and  for  what  ?  In  order  to  establish  a 
Republic.  He  was  employed  to  levy  forces  ;  he  did  levy  them.  He 
levied  his  ten  men.  Was  this  improbable  ?  He  had  been  a  soldier  ; 
he  enlisted  his  ten  men,  according  to  his  promise  to  Burke.  Is  there 
anything  in  that  at  which  the  mind  revolts  ? 

•  Any  one  who  has  read  the  report  of  A,  H.  Rowan's  trial  must  see  that  this 
was  entirely  false.  He  was  convicted  on  the  evidence  of  Lister  who  could  not  be 
said  not  to  be  "  staunch,"  for  he  never  was  an  United  Irishman  or  Volunteer,  nor 
was  he  ever  involved  in  the  designs  of  Rowan.  He  was  a  man  of  bad  character 
in  most  particulars,  but  he  did  not  add  treachery  to  the  number,  as  he  never  par 
ticipated  jn  the  secrets  or  objects  of  Rowan's  party. 

2   G 


450  TRIALS  OF 

What  is  next  to  be  done  ?  they  collect  together,  not  in  one  place 
only,  or  secretly,  but  in  several.  He  attends  ;  he  describes  the  places  J 
most  accurately.  Twenty-three  met  in  one  place  ;  he  mentions  most  * 
of  their  names,  Cook,  Dry,  CoiFey,  Gallan,  Atkinson,  &c.  These 
were  my  associates.  Were  they  ?  They  are  fugitives  in  guilt,  and 
conscious  traitors ;  why  do  not  some  of  them  come,  and  contradict 
what  this  man  has  sworn  ?  What  is  next  done  ?  After  he  stated  who 
were  at  Dry's,  he  mentioned  several  other  places,  and  particularly 
Plunket-street  where  Defenders  met,  and  where  subscriptions  were 
made  for  buying  gunpowder  ;  the  waiter  was  a  Defender,  and  there- 
fore took  care,  not  to  let  strangers  in.  Is  there  any  man  to  contradict 
this  ?  Honest  men  need  not  be  afraid  to  allege  the  contrary,  if  the 
facts  were  not  so — any  of  the  family  could  prove  it,  if  it  were  false. 
The  prisoner  might  say  (if  the  fact  were  so),  "  I  was  in  bed,  and  will 
shew  it ;  we  were  not  at  Dry's,  or  we  were  only  three  in  number." 
The  witness  mentioned  several  house-keepers  ;  is  it  not  a  challenge 
to  the  whole  city  of  Dublin  to  give  evidence  against  these  assertions  ? 
*'  Let  me  see,  if  there  be  any  man  to  contradict  me."  What  does  he 
say  next? — he  uses  language  that  must  bring  certainty  to  every 
mind  ;  "  I  liked  the  prisoner  as  a  Defender."  Thei'e  is  no  evidence 
to  shew  he  had  any  quarrel  with  these  people.  He  was  himself  a 
faithful  Defender,  as  they  thought.  One  of  them  told  him,  if  he  was 
asked  what  religion  he  Avas  of,  not  to  say  he  was  a  Protestant ;  accord- 
ingly he  said  he  was  a  Roman  Catholic.  Upon  that  confidence,  Hart 
calls  him  into  a  window,  when  they  were  assembled  at  Drury-laue, 
and  says,  "  you  know  that  Coffey,  the  chairman,  what  religion  is  he  ?  " 
"  Why  do  you  ask  me,"  said  Lawler  ? — "  because,"  replied  the  other, 
"  if  I  thought  he  was  a  Protestant,  I  would  not  keep  him  company, 
and  I  tell  you,  that  the  intention  was  to  make  a  general  rising  on 
such  a  night,  but  we  considered,  that  if  we  did  it,  before  the  harvest  , 
was  got  in,  we  might  be  starved,  but  as  soon  as  that  is  done,  we  will 
make  the  attack."  Then  indeed,  it  behoved  Lawler,  who  had  changed 
his  name  to  save  his  life,  to  take  care  of  himself — "  they  will  find 
out  that  I  am  a  Protestant,  and  it  is  necessary  I  should  save  my 
life."  Is  there  anything  improbable  in  that  ?  Let  me  be  understood 
to  say,  that  they  were  to  be  destroyed  by  Defenders  and  ruffians, 
traitors,  and  rebels.  Does  this  cast  reflections  upon  the  good  subjects 
of  the  kingdom  ?  No  such  thing  ;  God  forbid !  I  wish  to  make 
every  man  zealous,  bound  in  point  of  honour  as  well  as  conscience  to 
support  the  cause  of  justice  and  of  his  country  against  ruffians,  against 
plunder,  violence,  murder,  and  treason ;  and  if  you  adopt  the  means 
which  I  shall  suggest,  I  will  shew,  that  in  a  month,  if  you  do  your  duty, 
there  will  be  an  end  of  Defenders  and  of  treason.  It  is  a  bold  promise. 
It  is  a  promise  founded  in  my  conviction  of  the  integrity  and  spirit  of 
Irishmen  and  all  classes  of  them.  Let  me  proceed,  however,  with 
the  conduct  of  these  men.  With  respect  to  Kennedy,  the  Defender's 
creed  is  found  in  his  pocket ;  it  was  found  where  the  witness  had 
previously  said  it  was.  Why,  to  talk  of  his  not  deserving  credit 
after  that,  would  be  to  suppose  men  were  made  up  of  idiocy,  and 
phrenzy.  If  you  lind  your  watch  in  a  man's  pocket,  would  you  dis- 
believe the  man  who  had  previously  told  you  it  was  there.  To  doubt 
then  the  evidence  as  to  Kennedy  would  be  to  make  you  the  most 


THE    DEFENDERS.  451 

stupid  animals  without  sense,  or  motion.     Then   what  is  found  upon 
Hart  ? — not  indeed  what  Lawler  knew  to  be  there  ;  but  there  is  found 
in  Hart's  pocket,  at  his  uncle's  house,  in  a  room  up  stairs,  this  notable 
Magna  Charta  of  Defendei'ism  and  treason,  in   more  strong  expres- 
sions than  either  the  oath  or  catechism.     It  speaks  as  treasonably,  as 
rebellion,  or  treason  could  make  it.     France  and  Ireland   are   called 
United  States  !  It  was  well  observed  by  one  of  my  brothers  upon  the 
trial,  "  how  united  but  in  treason  ? "  You  may  as  well  unite  fire  and 
water.     The  two  nations  are  at  war,   and  can   only   be   united  in  a 
bond  of  wickedness  and  blasphemy,  rebellion  and  treason.     So  that 
finding  this  paper  upon  Hart  would  alone  shew,  that  every  word  said 
respecting  him  was  true.     But  does  it  rest  there  ?  No  :  for  in   the 
chamber  of  these  infants,  as  they  are  called,   dressed  out  so  for  the 
occasion,  there  are  found  a  blunderbuss  and  twenty  ball  cartridges  ! 
Then  it  is  said,  will  you  pass  sentence  on  infants  ?  I  have  known  juries 
long  ;  I  have  never  known  above  three  instances  where  they  were 
mistaken.     How  are  these  juries  taken  ? — from  the  body  of  the  city. 
Was  it  a  parcel  of  grandees  ? — no  such  thing.     Each  of  these  boys, 
by  industry  and  diligence  might  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  be  as 
great  and  as  grand  as  any  of  those  who  tried  him.     What  then  was 
found  ?  A  blunderbuss  and  twenty  ball  cartridges  I  Is  this  the  innocent 
skinner's  apprentice,  with  a  blunderbuss  and  twenty  ball  cartridges  in 
his  box !  Gentlemen,  parents  do  not  do  their  duty.  Magistrates  do  their 
duty  ill.     Masters  still  worse.     Neither  their  duty  to  God,  their  con- 
sciences, or  the  public.     Did  they  but   see  where  their  apprentices 
and  those  employed    about  them    consumed    their   time,   and  wliat 
company  poor  lads,  taken  from  their  parents,  and  left  with  those  who 
should  teach  them  religion  as  well  as  trade,  frequented,  the  mischief 
might  be  prevented.     Can  it  be  imagined,  that  if  masters  did   their 
duty,  such  a  system  as  now  prevails  could  continue  for  a   week  ? 
No.     But  what  do  the  masters  come  here  to  say? — not  to  contradict 
the  witness,  but  to  say,  they  do  not  believe  him.     One   man  was  a 
member  of  a  reading  society,  a  master  tailor,  thirty  six  years  of  age,  and 
a  father  of  a  family,  reading  Pope's  works  and  a  dictionary  of  sciences ! 
"  I  attended  a  reading  society  ;  it  became  the  Philanthropic  Society, 
and  Paine's  Age  of  Reason  was  the  object  of  our  studies."     Is  this 
the  way  in  which  the  honest  and  well  deserving  tradesmen  and  arti- 
ficers of  the  city  of  Dublin  should  be  employed  ?    If  masters  were 
employed  as  they  ought,  would  apprentices  be  employed  as  they 
ought  not  ?  Another  witness  produced  on  behalf  of  the  prisoner  was 
a  man  of  the  name   of  Robinson,  and,  very  unfortunately,  I  find  an 
indictment  against  him.     I  do  not  presume  him  guilty  ; — but  he  is 
indicted  ;  for  what  ?  For  publishing  carricatures  ;  an  odious  mode  of 
obtaining  a  livelihood.     Who  is  the  next  witness  produced?  The 
landlord,  who  found  him  honest,  industrious,  and  diligent,  but  said 
he  did  not  deserve  credit,  because  he  used  to  work  upon  Sunday,  and 
did  not  go  to  church.     Who  is  the  next  person  brought  to  impeach 
Lawler  ?  Gallan,  who  became  a  grocer  from  a  hair-dresser,  and  who 
Lawler  proves  had  given  him  a  pistol,  knowing  what  use  was  to  be 
made  of  it.     The  pistol  was  brought  into  court.     My  God,  then  is  it 
necessary  to  go  into  a  deep   and  laboured  refinement  to   satisfy  you 
that  everything  which  has  been  said  hitherto  is  deserving  of  credit  ? 


452  TRIALS     OF 

It  is  said,  and  it  was  argued  upon  ingeniously,  that  a  man  having 
no  sense  of  religion,  who  thought  of  putting  the  King  to  death,  who 
deserted,  who  was  charged  with  petty  thefts,  and  was  faithless  to  his 
own  people — are  you  to  believe  him  ?  The  answer  is  plain — ^you  find 
that  the  man  entered  into  a  wicked  association,  and  when  it  came  to 
touch  his  own  life,  he  quits  it.  Under  what  circumstances  ?  Not  as 
an  approver.  He  was  not  sworn  against.  Not  a  man  of  the  whole 
gang  was  sworn  against.  He  came  and  gave  information  to  him  in 
whom  he  thought  he  could  confide.  He  then  goes  to  Alderman  James, 
tells  him  of  the  situation  of  affairs.  An  assembly  was  to  be  had  ;  and 
their  object  was  communicated.  The  magistrate  meets  three  thousand 
people.  In  answer  to  a  question,  put  by  the  prisoner's  counsel,  he 
says,  he  believes  their  object  was  to  attack  the  bank,  plunder  it,  and 
take  the  arsenal  of  the  castle.  Is  that  a  reason  why  Lawler  is  to  be 
disbelieved  because  he  is  confirmed  by  a  magistrate  of  the  city  of 
Dublin  as  to  part  of  the  information  he  has  given  ? 

Again  as  to  Crumlin ;  a  meeting  of  Defenders  is  held  there — that 
will  be  the  time,  says  Lawler,  to  rescue  me — and  that  is  the  time  he 
first  openly  abandons  the  association.  If  he  were  a  liar,  is  there  any- 
thing more  certain  than  that  he  could  not  muster  three  thousand 
people?  What  then  prevents  you  from  yielding  to  every  rule  of 
probability,  confirmed  by  testimony  that  cannot  err  ?  For  so  it  is  with 
respect  to  what  has  been  deposed  by  Carleton  and  Godfrey ;  all  confirm- 
ing every  tittle  and  every  circumstance  passing  from  this  man's  lips. 

See  it  in  another  light.  It  is  said  he  concealed  part  of  what  he 
should  have  discovered,  namely,  the  abominable  design  against  the 
Chancellor.  He  did  so  ;  but  it  appears  there  was  such  a  design.  To 
be  sure,  a  man  who  was  not  shocked  at  the  idea  of  destroying  the 
King,  would  not  be  shocked  at  the  scheme  of  destroying  the  Chan- 
cellor ;  but  he  was  shocked  at  his  own  danger.  And  is  this  improbable, 
that  they  designed  mischief  against  that  great  magisti'ate,  whom  they 
afterwards  attacked,  and  were  near  destroying  in  the  open  street  ?* 
Therefoi'e,  you  see  that  probability  follows  this  witness  as  a  shadow 
does  the  substance,  fully  establishing  the  truth  of  his  narration. 

Now  as  to  another  part  of  the  case.  One  of  these  Defenders  was 
tried  three  months  ago.  The  evidence  was  very  neax-ly  in  terms  the 
same,  with  regard  to  the  Defenders,  as  has  appeared  against  these  two 
boys.  Three  judges  attended  upon  that  occasion ; — men,  whose 
characters,  if  some  of  them  were  not  present,  I  would  minutely 
describe ;  men  of  temper,  of  high  reputation  even  before  they  got 
upon  the  bench ;  they  try  and  approve  of  a  verdict  against  Weldon. 
One  jury  acquitted  Leary.  Why  ?  Because  the  only  time  he  went 
among  them  he  was  drunk.     In  such  a  state,  any  man  might  have 

*  The  Chancellor  in  his  carnage  was  assailed  ;  he  received  the  blow  of  a  stone 
which  with  somewhat  more  force  would  have  rid  the  people  of  their  enemy.  His 
house  was  attacked  ;  the  populace  were  determined  to  destroy  him,  and  were 
proceeding  to  execute  their  intentions.  At  that  moment  their  rage  was  most 
fortunately  diverted  by  the  address  of  his  sister,  Mrs.  Jeffries,  who,  unknown,  and 
at  great  risk,  had  mingled  in  the  crowd  ;  she  misled  them  as  to  the  place  of  his 
concealment.  Disappointed  of  their  object,  they  then  attacked  the  Custom-house, 
where  Mr.  Beresford  first  commissioner  of  the  revenue  resided.  Dreadful  results 
were,  with  reason,  apprehended — See  Harrington's  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall 
of  the  Irish  Nation,  p.  425  (Duffy's  Edition^. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  453 

done  the  same.  But  then  a  clamour  is  made  through  the  country, 
«  are  the  lives  of  subjects  to  be  taken  away  upon  the  oaths  of  Atheists  ? 
A  fly's  wing  ought  not  to  be  hurt  by  his  testimony."  See  what  was 
done:  The  judges  postponed  the  execution  of  the  man,  to  let  in 
time  as  much  as  possible  to  see  whether  subsequent  events  would 
produce  any  different  evidence.  Time  is  given,  assistance  is  had,  and 
every  opportunity  upon  earth  is  allowed  to  bring  light  upon  the  subject, 
and  discover  whether  the  witness  was  a  liar.  What  is  the  result  ?  A 
confirmation  of  every  tittle.  But  there  is  another  circumstance  :  Two 
or  three  of  the  juxy  in  the  latter  cases  were  upon  the  jury  who  acquit- 
ted Leary ;  it  was  to  their  honovir — though,  perhaps,  in  such  cases 
honour  should  not  be  spoken  of;  but  it  so  happened  that  some  of  the 
jury  who  acquitted  Leary,  were  upon  the  jury  who  found  Kennedy 
guilty.  So  tliat  with  every  prejudice  which  they  might  have  derived 
from  Leary's  case  upon  their  minds,  after  a  trial  which  took  up 
thirteen  or  fourteen  hours,  they  came  back  in  ten  minutes  satisfied 
that  Kennedy  was  guilty. 

Again,  I  had  the  good  fortune  to  be  assisted  by  two  of  the  judges 
who  presided  in  the  former  cases  ;  they  brought  their  notes  into  court 
with  them,  and,  as  was  their  duty,  compared  those  notes  with  what 
appeared  upon  the  latter  trials,  in  order  to  discover  whether  there 
was  any  inconsistency.  It  is  the  fashion  noAV  to  publish  everything. 
The  former  trials  were  published  ;  eveiything  met  the  public  eye ; 
and  still  everything  is  confirmed.  What  was  sworn  to  before,  was 
sworn  to  again  ;  and  no  part  is  contradicted. 

I  shall  take  leave  of  this  part,  convinced  in  my  mind  and  satisfied 
in  my  conscience  that  the  information  of  the  witness  upon  every  part 
material  to  the  trials  was  founded  in  truth.  I  shall  end  this  part  with 
this  observation :  It  was  sworn  that  they  intended  to  have  put  to 
death  the  jury  who  found  Jackson  guilty.  It  was  not  improbable  that 
they  who  designed  to  murder  the  King  and  the  Chancellor  would  have 
murdered  a  jury.  When  the  last  jury  heard  what  the  witness  said, 
it  required  manliness  to  find  a  verdict  of  conviction  after  such  a 
menace  ;  they  were  convinced  by  facts,  and  they  scorned  to  entertain 
any  fear.  They  heard  what  might  have  alarmed  weak  minds,  little, 
weak,  traitorous  minds.  A  juror  might  have  said,  "  I  will  not  put 
myself  into  that  situation ;"  on  the  contrary,  they  came  in  manfully, 
in  ten  minutes,  finding  a  verdict  of  guilty,  upon  their  oaths  and  their 
consciences. 

But  after  that,  6ach  jury  did  recommend  the  prisoners  as  objects  of 
mercy ;  and  assigned  their  single  reason,  that  it  was  on  account  of 
their  youth.  I  then  said  what  I  now  repeat,  that  I  would  communi- 
cate that  recommendation  to  government.  I  lost  no  time  in  it ;  I 
stated  it  in  the  very  woi-ds  of  the  jury,  without  adding  a  word  of  mine 
upon  the  evidence  ;  being  of  opinion  that  I  should  not  serve  the  pri- 
soner if  I  did.  The  consideration  of  mercy  is  whei'c  it  ought  to  be, 
untouched  by  me.  It  will  be  exercised  or  not,  for  anything  I  know  ; 
I  form  no  conjecture  upon  it. 

I  now  take  leave  of  this  man,  and  the  general  opinion  circulated 
about  him,  that  he  is  not  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath.  If  there  be  any 
man  in  court  of  a  diflferent  opinion,  he  is  of  different  materials  in 
heart  and  understanding  from  any  I  know  of. 


454  TRIALS  OF 

Is  it  of  consequence,  or  not,  that  tliese  trials  slioulcl  go  into  the 
country  truly  ?  I  think  it  is.  It  was  alleged,  that  the  verdicts  were 
founded  upon  the  extravagant  assertions  of  a  wretch,  who  should  not 
be  believed.  If  there  be  any  man,  who  think  that  way,  I  desire  no 
longer  to  discourse  with  him  upon  any  subject. 

Having  made  those  impi'cssions  upon  your  minds,  which  I  trust  I 
have,  with  regard  to  the  credibility  of  this  witness,  let  me  mention 
what  is  of  more  consequence  to  vis  all,  and  if  you  treat  it  with  neglect, 
you  do  not  deserve  what  the  constitution  and  your  oaths  suppose  you  to 
possess,  nay,  the  heads  you  wear.  We  have  been  labouring  five 
years  under  the  evils  of  sedition,  coupled  with  privy  conspiracy,  and 
rebellion.  One  springs  from  the  other,  but  fortunately  as  they  grow 
up,  they  crumble  by  the  weight  of  their  own  enormity  and  could  not 
exist  but  from  one  cause,  and  that  is,  the  criminal  torpor,  which  pre- 
vails among  you.  I  have  observed  a  criminal  disregard,  indolence 
and  inattention  of  the  most  apparent  duty  of  the  subject,  for  some 
time  past,  to  such  a  degree  as  has  been  productive  of  the  most  serious 
mischief. 

Here  I  cannot  avoid  obtruding  a  Avord  upon  you  with  respect  to 
myself.      The  history  of  my  life   has  been  a  history  of  toleration. 
By  education,  by  nature  and  the  habits  of  my  life,   I  have  been  led 
to  indulge  toleration.       I   never  discouraged  enquiry.     Bold,   open 
debate,  open  argument,  honest  opinions,  only  guarded  by  the  princi- 
ples of  charity,  morality,  good  order  and  decency  ;  so  guarded,  let 
your  argument  be  as  free  as  wind,  and  your  words  as  comprehensive 
as  language  can  speak.     If  I  have  misrepresented  myself,  I  call  upon 
the  community  to  be  witness  against  me.     Every  man  feeling  any 
regard  for  the  common  welfare  must  acknowledge,  that  the  present 
moment  is  sufficient  to  raise  suspicion,  Avhich  is  ever  considered  as  the 
best  sentinel  of  wisdom.   I  am  now  speaking  before  a  number  of  people 
who   have  made  fortunes ;  who   are  remarkable  for  industry  ;  who 
never  forgot  the  common  good  in  pursuing  their  personal  interest.  I 
ask  them,  whether  this  be  not  a  moment  for  alarm  ?  What,  that  you 
should  have  a  club  of  traitors  in  the  bowels  of  your  country  ?    And 
have  found   none  of  them  but   a  few    boys    and  a  soldier !    Why 
do  you  not  exert  yourselves  ?    You  acknowledge  that  there  is  a  set  of 
people  called  Defenders,  they   come  in   the   night ;  they  take  arms, 
and  get  money,  but  they  mean  no  mischief!     They  take  arms  :     Why 
do  you  suffer  them  ?  "  Why,   really,"  answers   one   of  these   supine 
men,  "  I  do  not  know :  one   would  not  wish,   to   be  sure,  to  make 
enemies."     And  what  do  you  expect  ? — "  Why  that  I  shall  not  be  the 
first  whose  tlu'oat  will  be  cut."     But  if  you  should  not  be  the  first, 
you  will  be  second  ;  and  if  not  the   second,  you  will  be  the  third. 
See  what  has  been  the  case  in  France :  what  a  succession  of  persons 
have  been  mowed  down  by  the  populace !    The  Duke  of  Orleans 
came  to  the  block  under  the  hands  of  the  persons,  whom  he  himself 
had  raised  into  consequence.     That  may  be  the  case  here. 

Another  excuse  is  urged.  "  If  I  enquire  after  those  who  take  my 
arms,  they  will  cut  my  tliroat."  I  am  not  now  talking  lightly.  What 
did  Swift,  who  was  a  man  of  much  political  sagacity  ?  This  country 
liad  been  greatly  infested  by  a  nest  of  robbers  ;  by  one  spirited  paper, 
teaching,  that  each  honest  man  liad  strength  enough  to  root  out  the 


I 


THE    DEFENDERS.  455 

mischief,  lie  obliged  them,  in  a  manner,  to  do  that  which  as  members 
of  society  they  ought.      They  were  pursued,  laid   hold  of,  the  arms 
were   taken  from  them.      What  is  attributed  to  one  of  the  Mount- 
morress  family?    With  one  sword  he  subdued  seven,   and  brought 
them  to  the  gallows.     I  saw  the  man's  picture,  with  blood   upon   his 
face  : — glorious  picture  !  And  glorious  story  to  be  told  !  If  you  have 
minds  and  spirits  entertaining  any  regard  for  your  parents,  your  chil- 
dren, or  the  constitution,  which  you  hold  dear,  can  it  be  doubted,  that, 
with  the  assistance  of   government,  the  power  and  the  sinews  of 
government,  if   individuals  exerted  themselves  for  a  month,   these 
conspiracies  must  be  suppressed.     Every  sensible  man  of  every  deno- 
mination should  step  forward  ;  I  mention  not  names  ;  I  call  upon  all 
ranks,  whether  protestants,  or  not ; — I  call  upon  all  classes  of  religion 
to  stand  up  and  do  their  duty,  and  suppress  a  common   evil.     Who 
have  been  the  instruments  of  it  ?  Men  who  have  fled  fi'om  the  law, 
or  who  have  sutfered  under  it.     Can  it  be  doubted  then,  when  you 
have  every  man  of  propei'ty  to  watch,  and  detect  abuses  of  so  mis- 
chievous a  nature,  that  they  could  not  be  suppressed  ?    Take  notice  of 
every  person  within  and  without  your  houses ;  observe   what  their 
opinions  and  occupations  are ;  where  they  spend  their  time,  and  how 
they  are  employed.     I  am  not  talking  now  to  infants,  or  boys  ; — if  due 
vigilance  be  exerted  for  a  month,  a  Defender  covild  not  exist  for  a 
month  within  forty  miles  of  Dublin.     These  are  either  servants,  or 
apprentice  boys ;  or  workmen.      Look  then  into  your  houses,   and 
see  how  your  tenants,  domestics  and  others  are  employed  ;  examine 
public-houses  ;  see  what  the  general  conduct  is,  that  people  do  not 
lose  their  senses  by  excess.     Want  of  morality  becomes  a  necessary 
consequence  of  want  of  sense  in  such  cases.     We  see  in  this  great 
town,  swarms  at  every  lane,  debauching  the  morals  of  its  inhabitants. 
Men  have  been  punished  by  the  pillory,  for  what  ? — for  endeavouring 
to  corrupt  the  minds  of  the  youth  by  obscene  pictures,  and  yet  I  have 
seen  twenty  men,  with  smiles  and  smirks,  as  if  they  were  pleased 
and  delighted  with  scandalous  representations.     What  are  magistrates 
for,  if  these  abuses  be  tolerated  ?  Point  your  minds  to  Scotland : — she  is 
a  model  of  temperance,  of  understanding,  of  wisdom,  of  religion  of  de- 
cency to  all  the  world,  and  she  has  thriven  accordingly.     It  is  not,  that 
the  Scotch  are  a  foi-tunate  people.    No,  it  does  not  depend  upon  fortune ; 
it  is  good  sense,  and  good  conduct.     There  is  not  a  drunken  creature  to 
be  met  with  there  in  a  month.     Whereas   here,   I   am-  sorry  to   say, 
that  I  have  more   pain  in  keeping  my  horse  from  trampling  upon 
drunken  people  of  a  Sunday  than  from  any  care   of  myself;  in  defi- 
ance of  all  decency,  they   seem   to  have  come  drunk  into  the  world, 
and  they  determine  to  go  drunk  out  of  it. 

But  see  the  consequence  of  this :  people  are  rendered  ripe  for  any 
mischief.  Exert  yourselves  then  to  stop  this  evil.  Call  for  aid  in 
this  undertaking,  and  if  you  find  the  magistrate  or  the  friend  disregard 
you,  mark  that  man,  no  matter  what  his  religion,  or  tenets  may  be, 
whether  he  carries  the  prayer-book,  or  the  breviary,  the  Koran  or 
Confucius,  if  he  do  not  assist  you  when  he  can  he  is  a  Defender, 
and  treat  him  as  such. 

Make  men  give  an  account  of  their  conduct.  See  what  is  done, 
and  declare  Avhat  ought  to  be  done.     Any  act  which   makes  a  man 


456  TRIALS    OF 

accessary  in  felony,  makes  liim  a  principal  in  treason.  If  he  comforts, 
and  abets  a  traitor,  knowing  him  to  be  such,  he  becomes  a  principal 
in  treason ;  therefore  it  behoves  him  to  take  care  how  he  keeps  in  his 
mind  the  knowledge  of  a  man  being  a  Defender.  Every  man  who 
protects,  who  assists,  or  abets,  upholds,  or  harbours  a  traitoi",  knowing 
him  to  be  such,  is  in  the  eye  of  the  law  and  common  sense  a  traitor, 
and  liable  to  the  penalties  of  treason.  The  next  oifence  is  misprision 
of  treason,  and  that  is,  where  a  man  knows  a  person  to  be  a  Defender, 
and'conceals  it ;  there  he  is  guilty  of  a  misprision  of  treason,  which  is 
punished  with  the  forfeiture  of  goods  and  chattels,  and  imprisonment 
for  the  life  of  the  party. 

I  am  stating  this  in  the  presence  of  many  knowing  the  profession. 
If  I  mis-state,  let  me  be  corrected.  I  am  speaking  before  an  auditory 
consisting  of  hundreds.  Is  it  not  probable,  that  many  of  those  who 
hear  me  are  trembling  at  the  idea  of  having  assisted  Defenders,  or 
having  been  guilty  of  misprision  in  not  discovering  them  ?  It  is 
therefore  time  to  watch  their  own  conduct.  I  have  given  them  fair 
warning.  I  have  told  them  the  law,  as  it  was  my  duty  to  do,  at  an 
important  and  alarming  period.  I  scorn  the  consequences  so  far  as 
they  may  affect  my  own  person.  If  this  infamy  is  to  disgrace  your 
country  (an  infamy  which  it  has  escaped  for  an  hundred  years,  for 
Jackson  was  the  lii-st  traitor  tried  here  for  a  century,  and  you  see 
they  are  thickening  and  increasing),  so  may  God  judge  me  as  I  had 
rather  die  to-morrow.  I  am  not  speaking  for  myself.  I  have  means 
of  protection,  which  many  have  not.  But  your  spirit  and  integrity 
is  your  best  protection — it  is  the  protection  of  the  humblest  among 
you.  Honest  virtue  and  spirit  triumph  over  all  the  vices  of  the 
earth. 

Adopt  as  many  of  these  sentiments  as  come  home  to  your  hearts, 
and  the  situation  you  are  in.  I  hope  I  have,  in  thus  addressing  you, 
done  some  good ;  I  certainly  did  not  mean  to  do  any  harm. 

Mr.  Attorney-General,. — Is  it  your  lordship's  wish  to  mention 
any  day  for  execution  to  be  done  upon  these  men  ? 

Lord  Clonmex,. — Mention  the  day  yom'self ;  we  wiU  adopt  your 
sentiments. 

Mr.  Attornet-Generai,. — I  had  no  particular  day  in  contempla- 
tion. We  wish  nothing  more  than  that  of  making  these  prosecutions 
have  the  effect  which  was  intended,  namely,  the  effect  arising  from 
example. 

Lord  Clonmel You  can  have  no  other  object.      One   of  the 

prisoners  mentioned  with  some  sharpness,  that  a  man  not  recommended 
had  ten  weeks.     Do  you  tliink  a  month  will  do  ? 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — My  lord,  I  have  no  other  object,  than 
what  I  mentioned.  But  the  compassionate  course  to  be  taken  is  to 
make  examples  as  soon  as  may  be  consistent  with  humanity — to  shew 
the  people,  they  cannot  escape  punishment,  and  thereby  prevent  other 
fellow  ci'catui'es  fi'om  following  the  like  crimes. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Suppose  we  appoint  this  day  fortnight. 

Mr.  Attorney-General My  lord,  that  will  give  time  enough 

for  those  who  have  power  to  extend  mercy,  if  they  choose  to  do  so. 
But  the  prisoners  should  not  entertain  such  an  idea  themselves.  I 
wished  the  day  not  to  be  too  distant,  lest  the  prisoners  might  indulge 


THE  DEFENDERS.  457 

expectations,  wliich  were  not  afterwards  to  be  gratilied,  and  at  the 
same  time  not  to  encourage  those  who  are  taught  by  every  possible 
means,  that  government  is  disinclined  to  execute  the  law.  Every 
person  in  court  has  discharged  his  duty  with  coolness,  deliberation, 
and  impartiality,  and  my  only  desire  is,  that  the  prisoners  may  not  be 
impressed  with  an  idea  that  they  are  not  to  suffer,  which  might  be 
fatal  to  them  hereafter.  And  people  should  not  go  away  with  an  idea, 
that  there  is  a  weakness  in  the  government.  If  any  man  mistake  me, 
I  cannot  speak  plainer  than  I  have  done. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — From  what  has  happened  this  day,  I 
think  my  brother  George  and  I  should  mention  why  Ave  appointed  a 
distant  day  for  Weldon.  I  declare  most  solemnly,  that  it  was  not 
from  any  doubt  of  the  propriety  of  the  verdict,  but  the  circum- 
stances were  very  particular  at  the  time  of  the  sentence.  One  jury 
upon  Lawler's  evidence  convicted  "Weldon.  Another  jury  upon  the 
same  evidence  had  acquitted  Leary ;  and  it  was  clear,  that  the  same 
Lawler  would  be  again  produced  at  this  commission.  We  could  not 
foresee  what  would  happen  ;  and  if  it  had  happened,  that  Lawler  was 
discredited  by  a  jury,  it  would  be  our  duty  to  recommend  Weldon. 
Therefore  a  day  was  appointed  for  his  execution,  after  this  commis- 
sion, for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  to  the  public  satisfaction,  whether 
Lawler  was  deserving  of  ci'edit  or  not ;  and  that  was  the  only  motive. 
We  should  be  deserving  of  public  censure,  indeed  we  should  receive 
our  own  censure,  if  v^^e  sentenced  Weldon  and  allowed  him  to  suffer, 
and  afterwards  Lawler  should  be  discredited.  I  mention  this,  because 
in  every  case  of  this  kind,  it  is  highly  essential,  that  the  public  should 
be  satisfied. 

Mr.  Baron  George. — As  Judge  Chamberlain  has  mentioned,  that 
there  was  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  judges  who  presided  upon 
Weldon's  trial,  as  to  his  guilt,  I  think  it  proper  to  declare,  that  I 
myself  have  no  doubt  of  his  guilt.  But  fi'om  the  circumstance  of 
Leary  having  been  acquitted,  we  thought  the  ends  of  justice  required, 
that  the  progress  of  justice  should  go  forward  in  such  a  manner,  that 
no  event  should  arise  to  discredit  that  justice.  It  is  not  only  necessary 
that  judges  should  be  satisfied;  but  we  thought  the  ends  of  justice 
required,  that  occasion  should  be  given  to  prove  the  guilt  of  those 
persons  to  demonstration.  The  infliction  of  such  severe  punishment, 
as  is  denounced  upon  crimes  of  this  sort,  ought  to  be  done  with  the 
utmost  deliberation,  more  especially  where  the  crown,  for  the  safety 
of  the  state,  is  the  prosecutor.  There  should  be  nothing  hasty, 
vindictive,  or  passionate,  that  people  may  see  government  intends 
nothing  more  than  the  distribution  of  justice  in  mercy.  For  these 
reasons,  and  as  in  cases  of  this  sort,  nothing  like  mistake  should 
intervene,  we  postponed  the  execution  of  Weldon,  that  every  man  in 
the  kingdom  might  see  the  nature  of  the  evidence.  But  it  was  not 
in  consequence  of  any  doubt  whatsoever  that  rested  in  the  minds  of 
any  of  the  judges.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Finucane, 
who  is  now  absent.  If  he  were  here,  he  would  declare  the  same 
better  than  I  can  for  him. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  am  apprehensive  what  I  said  was 
not  perfectly  understood.  I  had  no  objection  to  a  distant  day ;  and 
so  far  from  it,  that  if  my  humble  opinion  were  necessary,  I  did  approve 


458  TRIALS     OF 

of  the  delay ;  and  if  my  opinion  had  been  desired,  I  would  have 
recommended  a  postponement. 

Saturday  the  12th  of  March  was  appointed  for  the  execution. 

Hugh  Crotheks,  Esq.,  foreman  of  the  city  grand  jury,  addressed 
the  court  and  read  a  resolution  passed  by  the  grand  jury,  expressing 
their  sincere  thanks  to  Lord  Chief-Justice  Clonmel  for  his  able  and 
spirited  address  to  them,  and  requesting  his  lordship's  permission  to 
have  it  printed. 

Lord  Clonmel  said  he  acknowledged  the  favour  and  was  grateful 
for  the  compliment  conveyed  by  the  grand  jury.  He  hoped  what  he 
said  made  a  due  impression  upon  their  minds  ;  but  was  sorry  he  could 
not  comply  with  their  request,  as  he  had  not  prepared  any  notes  for 
the  occasion. 

The  following  day  the  High  Sheriff  of  the  county  communicated  to 
his  lordship  a  similar  resolution  of  the  county  grand  jury,  to  which 
his  lordship  returned  a  similar  answer. 

Weldon  was  executed  at  the  front  of  Newgate  pursuant  to  his 
sentence. 

Kennedy  and  Hart  were  respited  until  the  19th  of  March,  when 
Hart  was  executed.     A  further  respite  has  been  granted  to  Kennedy. 


A   EEPORT 


OF  A 


TRIAL  FOR  A  COJNTSPIRACY. 


COMMISSION. 

Monday,  February  22,  1796. 

The  Grand  Jury  having  found  the  following  indictment,  the  persons 
therein  named  were  this  day  arraigned. 

County  of  the  City  of  \^'' The  jurors  of  our  Lord  the  King  upon 
Dublin,  to  tvit.  J  their  oath  present  that  Andrew  Glennan,  of 
the  city  of  Dublin,  yeoman,  Philip  Kane,  Owen  Reilly,  Charles 
Soraghan,  Patrick  Kinshela,  Michael  Sleaven,  John  Connor,  Hugh 
Byrne,  Michael  AValsh,  John  Ratican,  James  Carmichael,  James 
Connor,  and  James  Dempsey,  of  the  said  city,  yeomen,  being  persons 
of  evil  name  and  dishonest  conversation,  on  the  31st  of  Janviary,  in 
the  36th  year  of  the  reign,  &c.,  at  Suffolk-street,  &c.,  contriving  and 
intending  one  John  Hanlon  wrongfully  to  oppress  and  aggrieve,  and 
him  to  death  and  final  destruction  to  bring  and  cause  and  procure  to 
be  brought  on  the  same  day,  year  and  place  with  force  and  arms,  &c., 
unlawfully,  wickedly,  and  maliciously  did  conspire,  confederate,  and 
agree  the  said  John  Hanlon  feloniously,  wilfully,  and  of  their  malice 
aforethought  to  kill  and  muxxler,  to  the  evil  and  pernicious  example 
of  all  others  in  the  like  case  offending,  and  against  the-  peace  of  our 
said  Lord  the  King,  his  crown  and  dignity. 

The  prisoners  severally  pleaded  Not  Guilty  ;  and  a  jury  being 
sworn,  the  prisoners  were  given  in  charge. 

Mr.  Attorney-General, — My  lord  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
this  is  an  indictment  against  the  prisonei's,  for  conspiring  to  put  to 
death  John  Hanlon,  a  soldier  in  the  Artillery.  Gentlemen,  the  men- 
tioning of  such  a  crime  alone  must  impress  every  mind  with  horror, 
and  I  am  sorry  to  be  able  to  state,  in  the  hearing  of  my  fellow-creatures, 
that  the  crime  is  growing  too  familiar  in  the  lower  orders  of  the 
people.  I  do  not  say  this  with  a  desire  to  see  conviction  pass  upon  these 
people  but  to  show  how  necessary  it  is  to  examine  into  the  matter  with 
all  possible  attention ;  that  if  the  prisoners  be  guilty,  they  may  be  found 
so,  and  examples  made  to  deter  others  from  offending  in  like  cases. 

Gentlemen,  the  circumstances  of  this  case  are  very  few.  It  is  known 
very  well  that  seditious  conspiracies  have  existed  within  this  kingdom 


? 


460  TRIALS    OF 


for  a  considerable  time ;  they  have  been  entered  into  by  persons  asso- 
ciated as  Defenders.     Several  persons  have  been  brought  to  trial,  and 
some  have  been  punished  for  their  offences,  amounting  to  high  treason. 
Some  who  have  been  accused  and  arrested  yet  remain  to  be  tried. 
In  the  town  of  Naas  there  at  present  remain  several  persons,  some 
indicted  at  the  last  assizes,  and  some  have  been  apprehended  since — 
all  charged  with  some  species  of  crime  or  other,  which  fall  under  the 
general  denomination  of  Defenderism.*     Among  these  men,  remain- 
ing in  a  gaol  at  Naas,  is  a  man  of  the  name  of  Gavacen,  who  lived 
near  Kilcock.     He  stands  charged  with  several  offences,  and  will  be 
brought  to  trial  next  week.j"     He  is  brother-in-law  of  Glennan,  the 
prisoner.     Gentlemen,  the    prisoner,   Glennan,  is  a  dairy-man,  and 
lives  in  Bow-street,  in  the  city  of  Dublin.     It  has  been  the  diabolical 
policy,  adopted  by  these  people,  to  prevent  their  associates  from  being 
brought  to  justice  when  apprehended,   by  assassinating  the  persons 
supposed  to  be  witnesses  against  them.     Glennan  conceived  the  design 
of  assassinating  John  Hanlon,  whom  he  supposed  would  be  a  witness 
against  the  prisoners  in  Naas,  and  amongst  the  rest  his  brother-in- 
law.     A  man   of  the   name  of  Thomas   Smith  is  a  gunner  in  the 
Artillery.     He  was  known  to  Glennan  for  some  time,  and  was  high 
in  his  confidence.     Smith  had,  in  a  way  that  he  will  describe  to  you, 
associated  himself  at  a  distant  period  back  with  some  persons  who  had 
entered  into  these  conspiracies.     He  had  remained  with  them  but  a 
short  while,  when  he  became  sensible  of  the  situation  in  which  he 
stood,  and  made  known  to  Government  the  conspiracy  which  existed 
against  it.      Glennan   being    desirous    to    procure   the    acquittal   of 
Gavacen  and  the  others  in  Naas,  conceived,  that  through  Smith,  the 
soldier  in  the  Artillery,  he  might  easily  effect  the  assassination   of 
Hanlon,  whom  he  supposed  would  be  a  witness  against  the  prisoners 
in  that  town.     Gentlemen,  in  order  to  bring  to  effect  this  purpose, 
some  time  in  the  beginning  of  January  he  sent  for  Smith  to  come  to 
his  house.     Smith  obeyed  the  summons,  and  on  Sunday,  the  3d  of 
January,  he  came  to  the  house  of  Glennan,  at  Bow-bridge.     Glennan 
there  told  Smith  that  there  were  several  Defenders  remaining  for  trial 
in  the  gaol  of  Naas,  and  asked  him  if  he  knew  Hanlon,  who  had  some 
time  before  enlisted.     Smith  said  he  did.     Glennan  then  said,  he  was 
to  be  a  witness  against  the  Defenders  in  Naas,  that  he  must  be 
murdered,  and  he  told  him  that  he  expected  through  the  means  of 
Smith  to  be  able  to  effect  his  purpose.     After  some  further  conver- 
sation it  was  agreed  that  a  meeting  should  be  had  at  the  house  of 
Carmichael,  who  keeps  a  public-house  in  Thomas-street.    A  meeting  of 
the  "  boys,"  as  they  denominated  it,  took  place  upon  vSunday,  the  24th 
of  January,  in  order  to  confer  upon  the  means  of  effecting  their  plan. 
Upon  the  24th,  Smith  came  to  the  house  of  Carmichael,  and  there  he 
met  Glennan  and  several  of  the  persons  now  at  the  bar,  and  there 

*  At  the  Spring  Assizes  for  Kildare,  1796,  three  persons  who  had  been  indicted 
for  high  treason  submitted,  and  three  indicted  for  administering  unlawful  oaths 
were  found  guilty  upon  the  testimony  of  Hanlon.  Three  men  were  found  guilty 
for  being  concerned  in  shooting  at  Mr.  Ryan,  and  two  others,  indicted  for  the 
same  oifence,  submitted. 

t  Gavacen  was  afterwards  convicted  of  administering  an  unlawful  oath,  upon 
the  testimony  of  one  Kelly. 


' 


THE  DEFENDERS.  461 

they  did  confer  together  upon  the  means  of  assassinating  Hanlon. 
They  desired  that  Smith  should  prevail  with  Hanlon  to  come  to  town 
upon  the  ensuing  Sunday  to  Carmichael's,  where  they  would  meet 
Glennan  and  the  rest  of  the  associates,  that  they,  would  accompany 
Smith  and  Hanlon  hack  again,  and  throw  him  into  the  Liffey,  as  they 
walked  along  the  path.  Smith  communicated  this  scheme  to  Serjeant- 
Major  Lane,  of  the  Artillery,  at  Chapelizod,  who  directed  Smith  to 
go  to  town  according  to  the  appointment,  and  to  hring  Hanlon  along 
with  him.  Accordingly  on  Sunday  evening  they  went  together, 
Hanlon  accompanying  Smith.  In  their  way  to  town  Hanlon  asked 
Smith  for  what  purpose  they  were  sent  to  town  at  that  hour  in  the 
evening ;  upon  which  Smith  disclosed  to  Hanlon  the  purpose  for  which 
they  were  sent.  Hanlon  then  hesitated  to  go,  but  Smith  told  him  he 
was  safe,  for  that  Alderman  Alexander  and  Alderman  Tweedy  were 
informed  of  the  whole  transaction — that  a  party  of  the  peace-officers 
were  assembled  at  Watling-street,  near  the  house  of  Carmichael,  and 
it  was  agreed  that  a  person  should  be  sent  in  to  give  a  signal  when 
the  party  were  assembled,  that  they  might  be  arrested. 

Smith  and  Hanlon  then  proceeded  to  town,  and  in  their  way  the 
former  stepped  into  the  house  of  Glennan  who  expressed  his  happiness ; 
said  he  was  glad  to  see  the  "  lad,"  desired  them  to  go  to  Carmichael's, 
and  the  "boys"  would  follow.  Smith  and  Hanlon  accordingly  went 
to  Carmichael's ;  there  they  found  two  or  three,  and  presently  were 
joined  by  others,  and  addressed  Smith  as  if  he  had  not  seen  him  before. 
They  talked  together  for  a  while,  and  whispered  somewhat  about  the 
design,  but  not  in  the  hearing  of  Hanlon,  though  in  his  view,  so  that 
he  could  not  go  away  without  being  perceived.  The  signal  was  then 
given — the  party  came  in — the  persons  at  the  bar  were  all  arrested, 
and  instantly  committed. 

This,  gentlemen,  is  a  state  of  the  facts  which  will  be  proved,  and 
if  you  believe  them,  they  necessarily  draw  the  conclusion,  that  the 
prisoners  are  guilty  of  the  offence  charged  against  them.  Some  other 
incidental  circumstances  will  come  out,  but  they  do  not  go  directly  to 
the  facts  charged,  though  they  go  to  establish  them ;  they  will  be  told 
by  Smith,  and  they  give  credit  to  his  evidence,  if  he  required  corro- 
boration. Gentlemen,  he  is  not  an  accomplice ;  he  had  no  intention 
to  commit  the  crime  ;  his  object  was  to  prevent  it,  if  he  could.  It  will 
appear,  when  the  magistrates  came,  these  people  pulled  papers  from 
their  pockets  and  threw  them  under  the  seat— papers  directly  evincing 
their  intention  of  committing  high  treason.  One  of  those  papers  was 
the  Defender's  Catechism,  in  expi-ess  words  declaring  their  reliance 
upon  the  French  Convention,  and  that  their  object  was  to  dethrone  all 
kings.  Upon  some  were  found  papers  of  a  like  tendency.  This 
shows  clearly  their  intention  to  commit  the  crime.  Smith  will  be 
corroborated  by  the  evidence  of  the  magistrates  and  other  persons. 
When  the  facts  shall  be  proved,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  prisoners' 
guilt ;  and  if  they  be  guilty,  we  can  only  lament  that  crimes  of  the 
deepest  dye  can  be  punished  but  as  a  misdemeanor. 

Thomas  Smith,  sworn. — Examined  by  the  Solicitor-General. 

Q.  Do  yovx  recollect  the  3d  of  January  last?     A,  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  to  have  called  upon  anybody  that  day  ?     A. 


462  TRIALS  OF 

At  the  house  of  Andrew  Glennan,   No.  7,  Bow-bridge:  there  he  is 
(pointing  at  the  prisoner  in  the  dock). 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  him  ?     A.  Yes  :  he  treated  me 

to  a  beef-steak,  and  then  took  me  out,  and  gave  me  two  pots  of  porter. 

Q.  What  conversation  had  you  with  him  ?     A.  The  first  person 

that  broke  the  discourse  was  Glennan's  wife.     She  asked  me  if  there 

was  a  recruit  in  the  Artillery  of  the  name  of  Hanlon. 

Q.  What  answer  did  you  make  ?  A.  I  told  her  I  did  not  know 
him,  nor  did  I  at  the  time  ;  I  then  recollected  and  said,  I  did  know 
him,  that  he  lived  a  few  doors  from  me.  Glennan  said  you  are  the 
very  man  the  business  lies  u]3on.  He  must  be  settled.  I  shall  way- 
lay him  and  kill  him. 

Q.  Did  he  assign  any  other  reason  ?  A.  Glennan  said  there  was 
to  the  amount  of  eleven  Defenders  in  Naas,  one  of  whom  was  bro- 
ther-in-law to  him  (Glennan),  and  Hanlon  was  to  prosecute  them  at 
the  next  assizes. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — Did  he  say  what  they  were  in  for  ?  A.  For 
Defenderism.) 

Q.  You  said  one  of  the  persons  confined  was  Gavacen  ?  A.  Yes  : 
he  was  brother  to  Mrs.  Glennan. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  be  in  terms  of  intimacy  with  Glennan  ?     A.    ■ 
I  was  sworn  in  January  1795,  as  a  Defender,  in  James  Doyle's  house,    I 
George's-quay,   and   Glennan  and  Doyle  stood  by,  as  commanding 
officers  of  the  regiment. 

Q.  That  connection  subsisted  ?     A.  Yes,  it  did. 

Q.  After  the  conversation  terminated,  was  any  appointment  made  ? 
A.  Yes  :  I  was  to  come  as  conveniently  as  I  could,  and  to  make  up  an 
intimacy  with  Hanlon  in  the  meantime,  and  bring  him  to  Glennan's 
house. 

Q.  You  belong  to  the  regiment  of  Ai-tillery  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  You  were  then  in  that  regiment  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  inform  any  person  of  this  conversation  ?  A.  When  I 
came  home  and  found  Hanlon  was  to  be  murdered,  next  morning 
upon  parade  I  called  Serjeant-Major  Lane  aside,  and  told  him  the 
whole.  I  told  him  I  was  to  set  Hanlon,  and  Glennan  was  to  murder 
him.  I  met  Glennan  afterwards,  when  I  went  to  George's-quay, 
and  William  Keeling,  and  James  Ward,  Defenders.  They  go  by  so 
many  names,  it  is  hard  to  know  them. 

Q.  Did  you  go  anywhere  ?  A.  Yes,  they  brought  me  into  a  pub- 
lic-house. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — They  were  Defenders  ?     A.  Yes.) 

Q.  What  passed  ?  A.  Glennan  opened  the  discourse,  and  informed 
the  other  two  that  I  was  the  man  who  could  set  Hanlon,  and  bring 
him  forward  to  be  murdered. 

Q.  You  mean  Glennan,  the  prisoner  ?     A.  The  present  man  there. 

Q.  What  further  did  he  say  ?  A.  I  was  to  meet  him  as  soon  as 
possible  again. 

Q.  Was  that  part  of  the  conversation  ?  A.  On  that  day  it  was, 
and  on  or  about  the  24tli  of  January. 

Q.  For  the  same  business  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  soon  after  did  you  meet  them  ?  A.  On  the  24th  of 
January. 


THE    DEFENDEUS.  463 

Q.  Did  you  see  Ilanlon  between  that  day  and  the  former  day  ? 
A.  I  saw  him  upon  duty,  but  had  no  conversation  with  him. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  upon  the  24th  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  the  exact 
day :  but  I  had  no  conversation  with  him.  I  had  no  conversation 
Avith  him  tliree  times  in  my  life,  until  I  was  sent  to  have  him  murdered, 

Q.  AVhat  happened  upon  the  24th  ?  A.  I  went  to  Glennan's  upon 
Bow-bridge.  Word  was  left  that  he  was  gone  to  Carmichael's,  21, 
Thomas-street. 

Q.  Mention  whether  you  met  Glennan  at  Carmichael's  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Is  Carmichael  at  the  bar  ?  A.  He  is.  There  he  is  (pointing 
to  him.) 

Q.  Who  else  was  there  ?  Was  there  any  other  ?  A.  Yes  : 
Patrick  Kinshela,  Michael  Sleaven  or  Shanagan — to  the  best  of  my 
knowledge  he  was  there. 

Q.  Are  you  certain  whether  he  was  there  or  not  ?  A.  I  am 
positive. 

Q.  Do  you  see  anybody  else  who  was  there  ?  A.  Yes,  a  good 
many — no  not  that  day. 

Q.  What  conversation  happened  in  the  presence  of  these  you  have 
mentioned,  upon  the  24th  ?  A.  The  conversation  that  happened  that 
day  with  Kinshela,  Sleaven  and  Glennan  was  for  me  to  bring  in  Hanlon. 

Q.  Was  Carmichael  present  ?  A.  No :  he  was  attending  his 
business  in  the  house. 

Q.  Was  he  present  at  any  part  of  the  conversation  ?  A.  Not 
belonging  to  Hanlon. 

Q.  Now  mention  the  conversation  between  the  other  persons  upon 
that  day  ?  A.  I  was  to  bring  in  Hanlon,  and  they  were  all  to  murder 
Hanlon  upon  the  Long  INIeadows,  going  down  from  Bow-bridge.  I 
was  asked  could  I  bring  Hanlon  next  Svmday.  I  said,  I  did  not 
know,  the  duty  being  severe,  and  perhaps  I  might  be  on  duty  myself, 
or  he  might.  Sleaven  said  "  you  must  bring  him  in,  I  have  been 
watching  a  week  for  him,  and  if  I  wait  until  Sunday  it  will  be  a 
fortnight;  if  another  Sunday,  it  will  be  three  weeks."  I  said  I  would 
call  upon  Glennan  on  Thursday,  and  let  him  know  Avhether  I  could 
bring  in  Hanlon  on  Sunday  or  not. 

Q.  Did  any  conversation  happen  about  what  they  were  to  do  with 
Hanlon  ?  A.  To  murder  him  upon  the  Long  Meadows,  and  throw 
his  body  into  the  river. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — How  many  knew  that  purpose  ?  .  A.  Glennan, 
Kinshela,  and  Sleaven. 

Q.  Anybody  else  at  the  bar  ?     A.  Nobody  else  at  the  bar.) 

Q.  You  undertook  to  come  in  on  Thui'sday,  did  you  come  in  ?  A. 
I  did. 

Q.  AATiom  did  you  see  ?     A.  Glennan,  at  his  house. 

Q.  What  happened  ?  A.  He  told  me  he  saw  Kinshela,  and  asked 
me  if  I  could  bring  in  Hanlon — I  told  him  I  could — he  told  me, 
before  he  would  eat  his  breakfast  next  morning  he  would  be  with 
Kinshela,  and  give  him  word,  and  they  would  be  fully  px'epared  for 
the  murder  of  Hanlon. 

Q.  Did  you  bring  Hanlon  the  next  Sunday  ?  A.  I  did,  by  order 
of  Serjeant-Major  Lane,  from  parade. 

Q.  Then  during  this  time   you  had  frequent  communications  with 


464  TRIALS    OF 

Seijeant-Major  Lane?  A.  I  had  everyday;  as  anything  passed, 
when  I  came  home  I  let  Serjeant- Major  Lane  know  it. 

Q.  You  came  on  the  Sunday  following  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  To  the  house  of  Glennan. 

Q.  Hanlon  walked  with  you  ?  A.  He  did  till  we  came  half  way 
through  the  fields  when  he  stopped  and  said,  "  now,  Smith,  where 
am  I  going." 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — Where  was  that  ?  A.  About  half-way  be- 
tween Island-bridge  and  Bow-bridge. 

Q.  In  the  Long  Meadows  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  hour  of  the  day  ?  A.  It  was  coming  the  dusk  of  the 
evening  ;  we  were  at  Glennan's  at  night-fall,  and  at  this  time  we  were 
half-a-raile  from  his  house.) 

Q.  What  answer  did  you  make  to  Hanlon  ?  A.  I  told  him  he  was 
going  to  be  murdered.  He  made  a  halt  and  said  he  would  not  come. 
I  told  him  he  should  come,  and,  with  the  help  of  God,  I  would  bring 
him  home  safe. 

Q.  Did  he  consent  ?  A.  He  came  forward  and  said,  "  take  care, 
perhaps  they  might  poison  me  unknown  to  you." 

Q.  (By  the  Court Who  did  he  mean  by  they  ?     A.  I  told  him 

the  secret ;  the  whole  business  from  beginning  to  end,  as  we  were 
going  through  the  fields.) 

Q.  You  satisfied  him  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  came  to  Glennan's  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  he  at  home  ?  A.  He  was  after  dining  ;  there  was  a  man 
standing  in  the  floor  with  him,  with  the  appearance  of  a  gentleman 
with  boots  and  good  clothes ;  I  do  not  know  who  he  was. 

Q.  Did  the  gentleman  in  the  boots  say  anything  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  Glennan  say  anything  ?  A.  He  did  ;  he  asked  me  "  had 
I  Hanlon."     I  told  him  I  had. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  it  in  the  presence  of  the  gentleman  ?  A.  He  did, 
out  plump  before  him. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — Where  was  Hanlon  at  that  time  ?  A.  He  was 
outside  of  Glennan's  house.) 

Q.  Did  Glennan  make  an  answer  when  you  told  him  ?  A.  Glen- 
nan said,  "  wheel  him  up  to  Carmichael's,  and  all  the  boys  will  be  up 
after  you,  by  and  bye." 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — Did  you  understand  what  the  boys  meant  ? 
A.  To  be  sure,  the  party  that  was  to  murder  Hanlon,  that  Glennan 
was  to  bring. 

Q.  In  the  dusk  of  the  evening  ?     A.  Yes.) 

Q.  You  went  up  to  Carmichael's  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  happened  there  ?     A.  We  had  two  pots  of  threepenny. 

Q.  Who  ?  A.  Hanlon  and  I ;  nobody  else  had  come  there  :  Glen- 
nan had  ordered  me  to  call  for  what  I  liked,  and  not  to  spare  cost ; 
when  we  called  for  the  threepenny,  in  walked  Patrick  Kinshela. 

Q.  Who  else  came  in  ?     A.  There  came  about  six  in  all. 

Q.  Mention  their  names  ?  A.  I  cannot  give  their  distinct  names. 
But  I  can  shew  them. 

Q.  Point  them  out  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  their  names  ;  Philip  Kane 
was  the  man  who  came  forward  to  the  counter,  and  said  "  he  was 
the  man  who  would  do  for  Hanlon  !"     Andrew  Glennan  was  there ; 


THE    DEFENDERS.  465 

Owen  Reily  was  there  :  I  was  often  in  his  company  as  a  Defender. 
Byrne  said  he  would  convey  Hanlon  a  piece  of  the  way  home.  The 
prisoners  are  all  in  different  appearances  fi'om  what  they  were  in  at 
the  time.  I  have  no  call  to  say  to  Carmichael  whatsoever,  as  to  the 
murder  of  Hanlon. 

Q.  Did  they  all  come  at  once  ?  A.  Kinshela  came  with  the  first 
party,  and  then  the  other  party  came  in. 

Q.  Did  they  converse  together  ?  A.  The  word  was  this,  they  were 
to  ask  "  who  was  with  me  ;"  I  was  to  answer,  "  Hanlon  a  recruit,  a 
friend  of  mine,  who  came  in  to  take  a  drink." 

Q.  Did  they  ask  you  ?  A.  They  did,  and  I  told  them ;  we  were 
sitting  in  Carmichael's  front  tap-room,  opposite  the  fire  ;  as  you  go  in 
you  turn  to  the  right ;  we  were  sitting  there  when  they  came  in. 
Kinshela  and  the  party  moved  to  the  centre  tap-room  when  they  came 
in,  and  they  called  for  two  large  jugs  of  punch,  and  some  beef-steaks. 
The  jugs  held  two  quarts,  or  three  pints  ;  we  drank  until  such  time 
as  Glennan  and  his  party  came  in. 

Q.  When  Glennan  and  his  party  came  in,  was  there  any  further 
conversation  ?     A.  The  same  as  before. 

Q.  Did  Glennan  ask  you  as  the  other  had  ?  A.  Surely  ;  they  all 
shook  me  by  the  hand,  and  I  thought  they  would  force  my  arms  from 
my  shoulders.  I  wanted  to  be  near,  and  got  near  the  door  ;  Alder- 
man Alexander's  man  was  in  the  front  tap-room  drinking  with  an- 
other person. 

Q.  He  was  there  you  say  ?  A.  He  had  been  with  me  there  the 
night  before ;  I  shewed  him  where  to  sit  privately,  and  how  to  act 
for  taking  these  people.  I  told  him  I  would  give  him  a  signal,  when 
to  take  the  people. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  name  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  sit  before  the  signal  was  given  ?  A.  "We 
were  not  sitting  long ;  some  made  me  sit  on  their  knees  ;  Sleaven  was 
running  about  like  a  distracted  man,  and  he  said,  "  when  this  business 
is  completed,  I  will  bring  18,000  men  to  Dublin  on  the  fol- 
lowing." 

Q.  Did  Glennan  hear  ?     A.  Certainly,  and  Kinshela  too. 

Q.  Did  Alderman  Alexander's  man  hear  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  talked  about  a  sign,  what  sign  ?  Was  it  a  Defender's 
sign  ?  A.  No ;  I  was  to  take  off  my  hat,  to  scratch  my  head,  and 
give  a  cough :  I  did  so,  and  Alderman  Alexander's  man  went  out  for 
the  party. 

Q.  Was  there  any  further  conversation  between  you,  relative  to 
the  party  ^  A.  None  ;  we  sat  down,  and  the  second  toast  we  drank 
was,  "  bad  luck  to  all  bad  Defenders." 

Q.  Was  that  so  loud  as  that  all  the  company  could  hear  it  ?  A.  It 
was ;  the  whole  house  could  hear  it — it  was  not  hid  in  a  bushel. 

After  that,  did  anything  remarkable  happen  ?  A.  I  do  not  know 
what  happened  between  Hanlon  then,  because  I  went  to  the  door, 
near  the  front  tap-room  ;  but  I  had  my  eye  upon  Hanlon,  for  fear  of 
any  danger  to  him.  They  were  all  so  fond  of  me,  some  shaking  me 
by  the  hand,  and  almost  pulling  my  arms  off. 

Q.  How  soon  after  did  the  guard  come  ?  A.  I  had  not  time  to 
take  a  glass  of  pixnch  before  they  came. 

2   H 


466  TRIALS  OF 

-  •  Q.  What  happened  after  ?  A.  Colonel  Alexander  came  in,  and 
that  gentleman  (Alderman  Tweedy). 

Q.  What  did  they  do  ?  A.  They  desired  the  constable  to  make 
me  prisoner,  and  take  me  one  side,  out  of  their  company,  for  fear 
they  should  hurt  me.  The  Alderman  then  took  the  prisoners  one 
after  another,  and  desired  me  to  pinch  his  arm  as  any  of  the  party 
passed  ;  a  man  was  then  put  upon  each  side  of  the  prisoners,  until 
they  were  brought  to  the  office. 

Q.  Were  they  searched  ?     A.  They  were. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  paper  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Hanlon  was  there  that  time  ?  A.  He  was  all  the  time,  and 
can  tell  what  passed.  There  was  a  paper  taken  out  at  Alderman 
Alexandei*'s  office,  and  read. 

Q.  Out  of  whose  pocket.     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  M'Nal,ly. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  Artillery?  A.  Since  the  15th 
of  April,  1795. 

Q.  Was  it  before,  or  after  you  were  enlisted,  ■  you  were  sworn  a 
Defender?     A.  Before. 

Q.  Were  you  intimately  acquainted  with  Glennan  before  you  went 
into  the  Artillery?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  Glennan  hold  any  conversation  with  you  about  going  into 
the  Artillery  ?  A.  I'll  tell  you  the  reason  I  went  in.  I  was  a  Pro- 
testant all  my  life,  and  so  was  my  father  and  grandfather  since  King 
William's  time.  I  was  obliged  to  hide  my  bible  and  prayer-book, 
and  I  consulted  with  my  wife,  and  determined  to  go  into  the  army, 
to  practice  my  profession  as  usual.  I  was  obliged  to  make  my 
daughter  deny  that  she  was  a  Protestant  born,  and  make  her  say,  she 
went  to  mass. 

[Here  the  witness  was  examined  by  the  Court.] 

Q.  Wlien  did  you  hear  of  their  intentions  ?     A.  In  February   1795. 

Q.  What  did  you  hear  ?  A.  They  were  talking  in  Connor's  house 
— we  expected  every  day  a  massacre  and  rebellion  was  to  break  out — 
no  Protestant  was  to  be  left  alive.  We  were  to  serve  under  Sir 
Edward  Bellew,  and  were  sworn  to  that.  The  oath  was  to  serve 
under  James  Cole,  Sir  Edwaixl  Bellew,  Napper  Tandy,  and  Hamilton 
Rowan.  There  were  sheets  of  paper  and  they  swore  to  it,  as  they 
said.  I  gave  information.  They  were  to  have  no  King  ;  they  said 
"  we  will  recover  our  estates,  sweep  clean  the  Protestants,  kill  the 
Lord  Lieutenant,  and  leave  none  alive."  There  were  a  good  many 
more  there. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  were  their  determinations,  as  you  can  recollect 
them  ?  A.  The  oath  was  to  serve  Sir  Edward  Bellew,  James  Cole, 
Napper  Tandy,  and  Hamilton  Rowan — to  serve  France  and  Ireland. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  about  the  Lord  Lieutenant  ?  A.  We  were 
one  morning  at  Connor's,  Glennan,  Dempsey,  and  others ;  we  came 
to  a  resolution  of  shooting  the  Lord  Lieutenant. 

Q.  Upon  what  day  was  that  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  ;  it  was  upon  a 
Sunday,    as   he   passed   through  the    Park.     We  were  to  take  the 


THE    DEFENDERS.  467 

Magazine  in  the  Pai'k,  the  Castle  of  Dublin,  and  put  all  the  nobility 
therein  to  death. 

Q.  You  said  you  were  in  constant  expectation  of  something  ?  A . 
Of  the  I'ebellion  breaking  out. 

Q.  Where?     A.  In  Dublin. 

Q.  When  did  that  commence  ?     A.  Last  April,  1795. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  it  was  in  April  last  ?  A.  It  was  sometime 
about  April,  or  March  ;  it  was  about  that  time  I  listed ;  I  gave 
information  so  often  to  Captain  Burgh  and  to  the  noblemen  in  Dublin 
and  Ireland,  and  seeing  no  notice  taken  of  it,  I  was  sure  I  would 
come  to  a  bad  end. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  give  information  beside  Captain  Burgh  ? 
A.  I  was  brought  to  the  Castle  and  saw  three  or  four  lords  with 
stars.  I  do  not  know  who  they  were ;  Captain  Burgh  knew  who 
they  were. 

Q.  You  gave  information  you  say  early  in  1796?  A.  I  did  in 
January,  1795. 

Q.  To  whom?  A.  To  Captain  Legge  and  Captain  Burgh,  and 
other  gentlemen,  I  do  not  know  them. 

Q.  You  said  you  saw  persons  with  stars  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  many  ?  A.  To  the  best  of  my  know- 
ledge three  or  four. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  Castle?  A.  As  you  go  into  the  upper 
Castle-gate,  from  the  lower,  on  the  left  there  is  a  door  in  the  corner, 
I  went  in  there. 

Q.  Were  you  examined?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Who  examined  you  ?     A.  The  gentleman  there. 

Q.  Were  there  any  gentlemen  of  the  bar  there  ?  A.  I  do  not 
know. 

Q.  What  hour  of  the  day  or  night  was  it  ?  A.  It  was  early  ;  in 
the  month  of  April.  When  I  spoke  of  January,  it  was  in  the 
evening. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  another  time  ?  A.  Yes,  I  saw  Captain 
Burgh  there. 

Q.  Wlio  do  you  mean  by  noblemen  ?  A.  The  noblemen  I  saw 
there.  There  was  another  gentleman  with  Captain  Burgh  there. 
I  did  all  I  could  to  get  forward,  but  could  get  nothing  done. 

Q.  In  what  situation  were  you  ?  A.  I  kept  a  porter-house  in 
Garden-lane. 

Q.  You  were  twice  examined  at  the  Castle  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Consider  before  you  answer ;  by  vii'tue  of  your  oath,  was  there 
any  person  there  dressed  like  a  lawyer  at  any  time  you  were 
examined  ?  A.  There  was  a  person  dressed  in  black,  but  I  did  not 
know  whether  he  was  a  lawyer. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  How  many  were  there  ?     A.  Three  or  four. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  the  people  with  stars  ?     A.  In  that  room. 

Q.  Did  you  know  any  of  them  ?  A.  There  was  a  gentleman  with 
a  small  black  patch  upon  his  face,  I  did  not  know  him. 

Q.  What  was  the  last  time  you  were  examined  in  the  Castle  ?  A. 
In  the  month  of  April. 

Q.  First  in  January  ?     A.  Yes. 


468  TRIALS    OF 

'*  -Q.  Were  the  same  persons  present  the  last  time  as  at  first  ?  A. 
No  :  first  there  was  Captains  Burgh  and  Legge  and  a  gentleman,  I 
believe  the  secretary  of  the  Board  of  Ordnance. 

Q.  "VVlio  the  second  time  ?  A.  The  gentlemen  with  stars,  and 
Captain  Burgh  was  called  upon  to  see  whether  I  had  told  him  before. 

Q.  He  is  alive  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  he  pi-esent  at  the  examination  ?  A.  No,  but  he  came 
forward  being  sent  for,  and  specified  that  I  told  him  before. 

Cross-examination  resumed. 

Q.  You  in  order  to  preserve  to  yourself  the  free  exercise  of  your 
religion,  went  into  the  Artillery  ?  A.  In  order  to  preserve  a  free 
life,  and  the  exercise  of  my  religion,  and  to  save  a  number  of  innocent 
persons  in  the  kingdom. 

Q.  Before  you  went  into  the  Artillery,  you  had  been  an  old 
Defender  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  But  you  became  so  frightened  at  the  wickedness  of  that  society, 
that  you  went  into  the  Artillery  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  were  sworn,  did  you  come  to  the  resoltuion 
of  shooting  the  Lord  Lieutenant  ?  Did  you  give  information  ?  A. 
That  was  before  I  went  into  the  Artillery. 

Q.  Did  you  give  any  information  of  the  intention  to  shoot  the  Lord 
Lieutenant  until  you  went  into  the  Artillery  ?  A.  I  did.  I  hired  a 
chair,  and  paid  eighteen  pence  for  it  to  go  to  Burgh. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  resolution  was  taken  ?  A.  At  that  time 
but  a  day  or  two  aftei*.     I  lost  no  time,  but  went  immediately  after. 

Q.  Did  you  immediately  on  its  occurring  to  your  mind  that  your 
religion  and  life  were  in  danger,  give  up  your  connection  with 
Defenders  ?     A.  I  did  till  they  followed  me  to  Chapelizod. 

Q.  Did  you  not  go  to  the  house  of  Glennan  ?  A.  But  it  was  a 
long  time  before  that  they  followed  me  to  Chapelizod. 

Q.  You  followed  him  to  Bow-bridge  ?  A.  Yes,  but  he  and  many 
others  followed  me  first. 

Q.  Did  you  assign  any  reason  for  going  into  the  Artillery  ?  A. 
I  did :  I  went  for  poverty.  They  asked  me  why  I  did  not  apply  ? 
I  said  I  would  not  ask  any  friend. 

Q.  Is  not  the  Artillery  known  to  be  a  Protestant  corps  ?  A.  It  is 
a  free  corps  for  any  man  who  conducts  himself  well,  and  promotion  is 
free  for  any  man. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  an  advertisement  for  recruiting  in  the 
ArtiUery?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Do  they  not  state  that  the  men  must  be  Protestants,  and 
of  good  character  ?  A.  That  time  was,  but  now  they  take  any 
men  in  the  way,  and  if  they  conduct  themselves  well  may  be 
promoted. 

Q.  Was  not  the  qualification  inserted  in  the  last  advertisement  ? 
A.  I  did  not  see  one  these  five  years. 

Q.  Is  it  not  the  custom  to  insert  it  down  to  this  day  ?  A.  I  do 
not  believe  it — of  a  Sunday,  when  we  parade  at  Chapelizod  every 
man  is  dressed  and  when  church-bell  rings,  the  drum  beats,  and  those 
who  go  to  mass,  turn  to  the  left,  and  it  is  free  for  the  exercise  of 
religion,  every  man  does  as  he  pleases. 


THE  DEFENDERS.  469 

Q.  You  and  Glennan  have  been  acquainted  for  a  considerable  time  ? 
A.  From  the  1st  of  January,  1795. 

Q.  You  kept  a  porter-house  in  Garden-lane  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  Glennan  resort  to  your  house  there  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  you  at  that  time  go  to  any  place  of  worship  ?  A.  No.  I 
went  two  or  three  times  with  them  to  mass,  but  never  went  withinside 
a  church  door. 

Q.  You  became  a  Defender  in  1795  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  you  continued  down  to  April,  the  time  you  enlisted? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  not  believe  that  your  entering  into  the  Artillery  inti- 
mated to  these  people  that  you  were  a  Protestant  ?  A.  No ;  I  am 
positive  it  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  continue  to  deny  your  religion  after  ?  A.  No ;  I  went 
to  church  freely  as  any  other  man. 

Q.  After  that  did  you  visit  Glennan  and  the  others  as  a  Defender  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  they  followed  you,  as  you  say,  to  Chapelizod,  had  you 
no  apprehension  that  these  men,  who  were  to  sweep  the  Protestants, 
would  sweep  you  ?  A.  I  had  apprehensions  of  it,  and  seldom  expected 
anything  else. 

Q.  And  did  you  not  go  alone  to  the  house  of  Glennan  ?  A.  I  did 
with  Hanlon. 

Q.  Did  you  not  go  without  him  ?     A.  I  did,  often  alone. 

Q.  Did  you  not  conceive  from  the  description  you  have  given 
of  Glennan,  that  he  was  one  who  would  sweep  oiF  the  Protestants  ? 
A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  yet  you  went  to  him  ?  A.  I  went  there  through  fear  of 
my  life. 

Q.  From  that  fear  you  went  into  the  Artillery  ?  A.  I  did.  I 
went  to  Glennan's  by  order  of  Serjeant  Lane. 

Q.  Hanlon  and  you  were  not  intimate  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  The  first  intimation  he  had,  that  he  was  to  be  murdered,  was 
upon  the  bank  of  the  river  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  Between  Island-bridge  and  Chapelizod  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  You  were  afraid  of  being  cut  off  by  these  people,  and  cautioned 
Hanlon  to  defend  himself?  A.  No  ;  I  told  him  nothing  till  we  left 
Chapelizod. 

Q.  He  was  unarmed  ?     A.  No  ;  he  had  his  side-arms. 

Q.  Had  you  been  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  all  the  prisoners  ? 
A.  I  was  often  in  their  company,  but  did  not  know  their  names ; 
these  Defenders  give  themselves  extraordinary  names. 

Q.  Are  you  so  well  acquainted,  as  to  swear  to  their  faces  ?  A.  Did 
I  not  do  so  already  ?  I  swear  they  are  the  men,  who  were  by  to 
murder  Hanlon  and  none  other. 

Q.  Do  you  take  upon  you  to  swear,  that  all  the  ten  men  in  the 
dock  were  pi-esent  and  overheard  the  conversation  respecting  the 
murder  ?  I  am  positive  they  were  all  consenting,  and  were  to  assist 
in  it. 

Q.  Was  the  proposal  to  murder  Hanlon  ?o  loud,  that  every  man 
ccnild  hear  it  ?      A.  Certainly. 

(^.   How  large  was  the  room  ?     A.  It  was  a  large  room. 


470  TRIALS   OF 

Q.  I  am  speaking  of  the  last  niglit  ?  A.  Sure  they  did  not  talk  of 
the  murder  of  Hanlon  before  his  face. 

Q.  Did  any  person  come  in  ?     A.  It  was  a  free  house. 

Q.  Did  any  person  come  in,  and  who  were  at  the  fireside  ?  A.  I 
am  not  positive. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  they  were  all  present  at  the  consultation  to 
murder  Hanlon  ?     A.  No  ;  there  were  twenty  there. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you,  were  all  the  men  at  the  bar  in  the  room  that 
night  ?     A.  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  Who  were  there  the  first  night  ?  A.  There  were  a  great  many 
— but  all  who  were  taken  on  the  last  night  by  my  directions  knew 
the  plot. 

John  Hanlon,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Prime- Serji: ant. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  31st  of  January  last?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  any  order  from  Serjeant-Major  Lane  that  day  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  To  come  into  town  along  with  Smith,  I  did 
not  know  for  what,  till  I  came  half-way ;  Smith  stopped  for  a  mo- 
ment ;  Smith  said,  "  you  are  going  to  be  murdered ;"  I  said,  I  would 
not  go ;  he  said,  not  to  fear,  and  told  me  the  way.  I  then  said  I 
would  go,  if  it  was  to  the  mouth  of  a  six-pounder.  We  came  to 
Glennan's,  I  leaned  my  shoulder  to  the  door,  Smith  went  in,  and 
Glennan  said,  "  wheel  up  the  lad  to  Carmichael's,  and  drink  the  best." 
We  did  so.  They  came  in  two  parties,  five  or  six  each.  They 
removed  us  from  the  place,  being  a  small  room  ;  they  took  Smith 
upon  their  knees,  they  were  so  glad  to  see  him.  I  drank  heartily, 
sure  enough,  and  after  some  time,  I  said,  it  was  growing  late,  for  I 
should  be  put  into  the  guard-house.  He  went  to  the  door,  and  a 
crowd  came  in.  I  was  pleased  to  see  them,  and  took  courage,  and 
drank  hearty.  Smith  was  taken  and  the  rest  brought  together.  They 
drank  "  present  death  and  confusion  to  all  bad  Defenders," — that  was 
against  me  for  betraying  tliem. 

Q.  You  were  to  give  information  against  Defenders  ?  A.  I  gave 
information  against  a  party  for  a  design  to  kill  the  Rev.  Mr.  Walsh 
at  Kilcock. 

Q.  Point  out  the  men  ?  A.  I  think  they  were  all  there  (here  he 
pointed  several  of  the  prisoners) — it  was  candle-light,  and  I  was  in 
much  confusion,  but  I  give  my  affidavit  this  man  was  there  (pointing 
at  Owen  Keily),  and  this  man  (Peter  Kinshela),  and  this  man  (Simon 
Walsh),  and  this  man,  (Andrew  Glennan),  and  this  man  (Hugh 
Byrne). 

Q.  Were  all  the  persons  there  that  night  taken  into  custody  ? 
A.  They  were,  ten  I  think  and  the  landlord. 

Cross-examined  by  IVIi'.  Green. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  acquainted  with  these  men  before  ?  A. 
Never,  not  one  man. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  their  comj^any  that  night  ?  A.  Perhaps 
three  quarters  of  an  hour. 

Q.  Were  they  not  divided  by  separate  benches  ?     A.  No  ;  because 


THE    DEFENDERS.  4^1 

the  first  party  that  came  in  took  us  out  of  a  small  bench,  and  brought 
us  into  a  spacious  place. 

Q.  You  were  a  good  deal  terrified  ?     A.  I  was,  certainly. 
't    Q.  You  had  not  seen  them  before  ?     A.  No,  not  one. 

Q.  How  then  are  you  so  certain  as  to  their  being  in  the  same 
place  ?     A.  By  their  expressions. 

Q.  You  cannot  say,  what  dress  they  were  in?  A.  I  did  not 
examine  their  dress. 

Q.  Have  they  the  same  now  which  they  had  that  night  ?  A.  I 
am  sure  they  have  part  of  it.  I  swear  to  the  five  men — the  very 
identical  men. 

Q.  They  suspected  you  to  be  a  Defender  ?  A.  1  was  taken  in  to 
be  a  Defender  by  a  north-country  man  at  Kilcock,  a  stone-cutter,  and 
I  was  obliged  to  swear,  or  I  would  not  come  out  alive. 

Q.  You  drank  veiy  heartily  ?     A.  Three  pints  and  a  half  of  punch. 

Q.  How  much  had  you  taken  before  the  crowd  appeared  ?  A.  Two 
pots  of  beer  and  two  jugs  of  punch. 

Q.  You  mentioned  to  Smith,  that  you  were  afraid  of  staying? 
A.  I  did,  seeing  them  going  about, 

Q.  You  knew  the  ofiicer  had  given  you  leave  to  go  ?  A.  He  did. 
But  I  did  not  know,  not  seeing  the  constables  coming,  how  much 
danger  there  might  be. 

Q.  Did  you  declare  the  night  the  persons  were  taken,  that  you  had 
no  charge  against  Reily  ?  A.  What  charge  could  I  have  against  any 
of  them,  but  for  their  oaths  and  declarations  ? 

Alderman  Alexander,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  Saurin. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  getting  information  from  Smith  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  was  the  time  and  what  the  nature  of  the  information  ? 
A.  A  person  called  upon  me  at  William-street,  and  said,  that  a  person 
of  the  name  of  Smith  would  give  information  against  sworn  Defenders, 
and  who  were  swearing  Defenders,  and  that  if  I  would  meet  him  at 
any  time,  where  he  would  not  be  suspected,  he  would  meet  me.  J 
appointed  the  next  morning  at  ten  o'clock :  he  came  and  he  told  the 
story  exactly  as  he  related  it  here. 

Q.  You  heard  him  give  his  testimony  here  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  the  information  he  gave  you  was  exactly  the  saiue  as  the 
account  he  gave  here  ?     A.  Exactly. 

Q.  Did  you  mention  the  time  this  happened  ?  A.  It  was  the 
Thursday  before  these  people  were  taken  up — the  28th,  I  believe.  I 
fixed  with  Smith  at  the  oifice  to  call  at  my  own  house  at  four  o'clock, 
and  I  sent  for  Alderman  Tweedy.  Smith  came  and  gave  examina- 
tions against  these  people.  I  agreed  that  he  should  go  to  the  house 
with  my  men,  in  order  to  take  them  when  they  were  assembled,  by 
giving  a  signal.  At  the  time  appointed,  two  men  were  stationed  at 
the  house  ;  I  was  told  the  sign  was  made  ;  I  came  down  with  a  party 
to  Carmichael's  house  and  took  them.  I  spoke  to  Smith  and  desired 
him  to  identify  them.  He  asked  me,  how  ?  I  told  hhn,  when  I 
asked  any  of  them  what  his  name  was,  if  he  was  of  the  party,  to  give 
my  arm  a  pinch.  I  asked  each  man  his  name  and  vSmith  gave  me  a  pinch 

Q.  How  many  ?  A.  Ten  and  the  landlord — he  was  not  silling  at 
the  table. 


472 


TRIALS   OF 


?■'  Q.  Can  you  identify  them  ?  A.  Six  of  them  I  can — their  dresses 
are  all  altered — that  man,  Sleaven  or  Shamrogue  I  know  very  well. 
Glennan  I  recollect  perfectly  well — I  remember  Eeily  too — we 
brought  them  all  up  to  Alderman  Tweedy's  office,  and  he  committed 
them. 

Q.  "Was  the  Alderman  there  at  the  time  the  prisoners  were 
brought  ?     A.  He  was  at  the  office.  . 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  more  ?     A.  There  was  a  paper  under  the  | 
table,  a  sort  of  catechism.     He  pulled  another  paper  out  of  the  pockets 
of  one  of  the  party.     Here  are  the  papers. 

Alderman  Tweedy,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  Worthington. 

Q.  Did  Alderman  Alexander  give  into  your  care  any  persons  on 
the  31st  of  January  last?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Look  round  and  try  if  you  see  them.  A.  I  do  ;  to  the  best  of 
my  belief  they  are  the  persons.  I  put  them  into  a  dock,  and  took 
them  out  one  by  one,  and  Smith  identified  them  all.  I  gave  them  to 
the  constable. 

Q.  Who  brought  them  to  Newgate  from  your  office?  A.  My 
constables. 

Q.  Have  you  any  of  those  constables  here  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  find  anything  upon  any  of  the  prisoners  ?  A.  I  found 
a  bible,  and  a  manual,  and  this  pocket-book,  in  which  there  was  a 
paper  with  some  powder  in  it.  Under  the  table  where  they  were 
sitting,  I  found  a  number  of  bits  of  paper  which  I  endeavoured  to 
put  together,  but  I  could  not.  Under  the  seat  I  found  this  kind  of  i 
catechism. 

Q.  You  sent  the  men  to  Newgate  who  were  given  to  you  ?  A.  I 
did. 

Tresham  Gregg,  sworn Examined  by  Mr.  Solicitor-General. 

Q.  You  received  all  these  men  at  the  bar  from  Alderman  Tweedy 
on  the  1st  of  February  last  ?  A.  I  did.  (Here  he  mentioned  all 
their  names.) 

Q.  Under  a  warrant  from  the  Alderman  ?     A.  Yes. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Ridgeway. 

Q.  Neither  Connor  nor  Dempsey  were  delivered  to  you  at  the  same 
time  with  the  others  ?     A.  They  were  not. 

[Here  the  papers  were  oflfered  to  be  read,  but  the  counsel  for  the 
prisoners  objecting,  that  no  paper  could  be  read,  except  such  as  was 
actually  found  upon  the  possession  of  one  of  the  prisoners,  or  satisfac- 
torily connected  with  one  of  them,  the  paper  found  under  the  seat 
was  not  read.] 

[The  following  paper  found  by  Alderman  Tweedy  upon  one  of  the 
prisoners  was  read.] 

"  Are  you  a  Christian  ?  I  am.  By  what  ?  By  baptism.  Who 
baptised  you  ?  St.  John.  Where  ?  In  the  river  Jordan.  What  did 
he  call  you  ?  To  be  loyal.  To  Avho  ?  To  God  and  my  brothers. 
Are  you  consecrated  ?  I  am.  To  what  ?  To  the  National  Convention 
— to  queal  all  nations — to  dethrone  all  Kings,  and  plant  the  tree  of 
iberty  on  our  Irish  land — whilst  the  French  Defenders  will  protect 


THE    DEFENDERS.  473 

our  cause,  and  the  Irish  Defenders  pull  down  the  British  laws. 
Which  is  the  first  T.  ?  The  tree  of  hberty.  Who  planted  it  ?  The 
Duke  of  Orleans.  Where  ?  In  his  own  lawn.  How  high  are  you  ? 
Three  steps  to  Paradise.  How  broad  are  you  ?  Fi'om  E.  to  W. 
How  long  ai-e  you  ?  From  N.  to  S.  Are  you  astray  ?  No,  I  am  not 
astray.  Where  are  you  going  ?  To  the  North.  What  to  do  ?  To 
look  for  my  brother.  What  is  his  name  ?  Sarsfield.  What  is  your 
number  ?  It  is  five.  What  is  your  pass-word  ?  Eliphismatis.  How 
do  you  stand  those  times  ?  Upright  as  well  as  I  can — I  am  afraid. 
Don't  be  afraid.  The  Duke  of  York  will  save  you.  What  do  you 
carry  ?  The  Rod  of  Aaron  at  command.  Who  sent  you  here  ?  Simon 
Peter.  Your  coat  is  dirty.  Is  it  high  up  ?  Pretty  high  up.  If  you 
be  a  friend  you  will  come  and  clean  it.  Where  did  the  cock  crow 
when  the  world  heard  him  ?  In  France.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the 
weather  ?  It  is  quite  clear ;  I  think  the  faded  flower  will  blow  again." 
Mr.  M'Nally — My  lord  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  times  like 
these,  after  what  you  have  heard,  considering  myself,  what  I  am  in 
heart  and  soul,  loving  and  revering  the  constitution  under  which  I 
live,  I  shall  not  address  you  without  expressing  the  abhorrence  which 
I  feel  in  my  mind  from  the  charge  against  the  prisoners  ;  and  I  cannot 
have  a  doubt,  that  every  man  upon  the  jury,  equally  abhors  a  crime, 
marked  by  the  most  infamous  cruelty,  that  can  degrade  the  human 
heart.  A  conspiracy  to  commit  a  crime  can  have  no  palliation  from 
the  crime  not  having  been  perpeti'ated,  and  therefore  the  impression 
upon  your  mind  must  be  the  same,  as  if  the  murder  were  actually 
committed.  But,  gentlemen,  let  me  warn  you  against  retaining  that 
impression  in  your  mind,  when  you  deliberate  upon  the  case  of  the 
prisoners,  because  it  is  your  duty  to  wipe  away  the  heinousness  of  the 
offence  so  as  not  to  suffer  it  to  influence  your  minds  beyond  the 
investigation  of  the  evidence  which  has  been  adduced.  You  are  not 
to  form  a  sudden  conclusion,  because  the  charge  is  atrocious.  You 
are  to  consider  this,  that  if  such  an  offence  could  have  been  taken  into 
consideration  by  ten  men,  it  is  equally  possible,  that  two  men,  such  as 
the  witnesses  could  form  a  conspiracy  to  fabricate  the  charge.  They 
stand  in  equal  situation  as  to  past  conduct.  A  paper  is  read — to 
prove  what  ? — that  the  prisoners  are  Defenders,  The  witnesses 
acknowledge  they  are  Defenders.  It  appears,  that  they  were  con- 
sidei'ed  to  be  perpetrators  in  all  the  enormities,  until,  as  they  allege, 
they  took  an  asylum  in  the  regiment  of  Artillery. 

Gentlemen,  I  certainly  cannot  but  acknowledge,  that  one  fact  sworn 
to  by  these  men  is  corroborated — but  what  is  that  ? — that  they  were 
taken  in  the  house  of  Carmichael.  But  it  does  not  follow,  tliat  they 
were  all  acting  together  as  conspirators,  and  only  four  or  five  of  the 
prisoners  have  been  identified  by  either  of  the  witnesses. 

Gentlemen,  the  credit  of  the  witnesses  is  with  you,  for  this  case 
depends  entirely  upon  the  credit,  which  you  may  give  them ;  and 
when  you  come  to  consider  upon  their  credit,  though  it  does  not 
appear,  that  they  come  as  approvers — that  they  were  apprehended 
first  and  came  to  save  themselves  from  prosecution,  yet  it  appears, 
that  there  was  a  time,  when  they  themselves  would  have  been  guilty 
and  were  guilty  of  the  very  offences,  which  they  impute  to  others. 
Gentlemen,  witnesses  will  be  produced  on  one  part  of  some  of  the 


474  TRIALS    OF 

prisoners,  to  shew  tliat  though  they  were  in  the  house,  yet  that  they 
are  innocent  persons. 

James  "White,  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Green. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  3 1  st  of  January  last  ?     A.I  do. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  house  of  Carmichael  the  evening  of  that  day  ? 
A.  Soraghan  and  Reilly  were  in  my  company  in  a  part  of  the  room 
at  a  distance  from  the  others.  Soraghan  lodged  in  the  house.  He 
was  going  home,  having  disagreed  with  his  master,  and  wrote  a  letter 
to  his  mother  to  that  efiect.  We  went  to  look  for  a  vacant  seat  in  the 
front  room,  then  went  into  the  back  room  ;  there  were  nine  or  ten  men 
there,  and  two  artillery-men.  We  went  to  the  first  vacancy  opposite 
to  them  ;  we  had  two  glasses  ;  Reilly  then  came  in,  and  sat  down  and 
took  two  glasses  of  punch.  A  gentleman  came  in  and  gave  the  first 
company  in  charge  and  no  person  was  let  out.  We  sat  contented 
there,  and  who  the  other  persons  were  I  knew  not ;  but  on  the  coming 
of  the  Alderman,  he  enquired  our  names,  and  he  apprehended  them 
as  he  got  their  names,  and  when  he  had  the  large  company  appre- 
hended, and  Carmichael,  the  man  of  the  house,  he  then  turned  to  Reilly 
and  said,  "  you  will  come  too,  a  very  good  name."  The  only  thing 
Reilly  had  about  him  was  a  crane-note.  He  then  asked  Soraghan  his 
name,  "  you  will  come  too,"  said  he.  With  that  they  marched  out  of 
the  house,  and  no  more  was  said  that  I  heard. 

Q.  Did  either  of  the  Artillery-men  make  any  declaration  respecting 
with  regard  to  Reilly  or  Soraghan  ?  A.  I  spoke  to  the  gentleman 
apprehending  them  and  said,  "  I  hoped  there  was  nothing  as  to  them 
or  their  company."  The  Artillery-man  rose  up  and  said,  "  no  person 
was  concerned  but  those  who  sat  with  him  in  the  large  company." 

Cross-examined  by  the  Prime- Serjeant. 

Q.  Soraghan  and  Reilly  lodged  at  Carmichael's  ?     A.  Yes. 
Q.  What  brought  you  to  Carmichael's  ?     A.  I  was  upon  my  travels 
home  and  met  the  two.     Soraghan  was  at  the  door. 

Q.  You  met  them  accidentally  ?     A.  I  found  them  there. 

Francis  Russell  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Green. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  31st  of  January  ?     A.  I  do,  very  well. 

Q.  You  were  at  the  house  of  Cai'michael  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Reilly  and  Soraghan  ?  A.  I  never  saw  them 
before  that  night ;  they  handed  me  a  glass  of  punch  ;  they  were  not  of 
the  company  who  were  detected,  but  when  the  Alderman  came  in  he 
desired  all  to  be  stopped. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  either  of  the  Artillery-men  make  any  declaration 
as  to  Reilly  or  Soraghan  ?.     A.  No  ;  I  did  not  hear. 

Q.  (By  the  jury What  are  you  ?     A.  I  am  a  constable,  and  went 


there  that  night. 


Alderman  Alexander  called  again. 


Q.  Was  there  any  reason  why  Reilly  and  Soraghan  were  separated? 
A.  They  were  in  a  separate  box  with  a  woman. 

Lord  Clonmel, There  is  evidence  for  the  jury  as  to  ten.  Gen- 
tlemen of  the  jury,  the  prisoners  stand  indicted  for  that  they,  on  the 
31st  of  January  last,  did  conspire  to  kill  and  murder  a  person  of  the 


THE    DEFENDERS.  475 

name  of  Hanlon.     To  support  this  prosecution  Thomas  Smith  was 
produced.     I  shall  read  over  his  evidence  without  any  observation, 
because  I  shall  leave  it  totally  to  you.     The  case  turns  entii-ely  upon 
the  credit  you  give  the  witnesses.     [Here  his  Lordship  stated  all  the 
evidence.]     A   paper  was   produced,    manifestly   treasonable,   every 
word  of  it,  and  it  goes  to  shew  you  that  they  were  likely  to  assemble 
for  the  purpose  of  mui'dering  a  person  who  was  to  prosecute  other 
Defenders,  being  Defenders  themselves.     Gentlemen,  here  the  prose 
cution  was  rested,  and  Mr.  M'Nally  put  the  case  upon  fair  ground, 
whether  the  prisoners  or  the  witnesses  were  the  conspirators  ?     It  is  a 
main  question  for  your  consideration.     If  you  believe  they  have  sworn 
false,  and  that  this  was  a  plan  of  theirs,  a  scheme  to  bring  innocent 
persons  into  crimination,  you  must  acquit  them  all.     But  if  you  believe 
the  testimony  of  these  witnesses,  with  the  evidence  of  the  Aldermen 
and  Grregg  as  to  their  identity,  you  will  find  them  guilty.     This  is  a 
misdemeanor ;   I  am  glad  it  is,  because  if  the  crime  had  been  com- 
mitted, they  must  have  been  tried  for  murder.     Then  they  produced 
James    White :    all   that   he   swore    was,   that   he   was   present   at 
Carmichael's  house.     He  endeavom-ed  to  distinguish,  so  as  to  get  out 
Reilly  and  Soraghan,  but  the  first  witness  said  they  had  all  decided  to 
kill  Hanlon — all  participated  in    the    intention.     This  witness    said 
these  two  were  in  a  seat  with  him,  distant  from  the  other  company. 
The  Artillery-men  said  they  were  not  of  the  company  at  first,  but 
afterwards  they  included  them.     Very  little  occurs  to  me,  upon  this 
occasion,  to  say  to  you.     It  is  for  your  consideration.     If  you  believe 
that  these  people  assembled  with  the  criminal  intent  charged  upon 
them ;  that  they  were  brought  together  for  the  purpose  of  forming 
a  scheme  to  destroy  Hanlon,  you  ought  to  find  them  all  guilty.     If 
any  line   of  distinction  occurs  to  you   with  regard  to    Eeilly    and 
Soraghan,  you  will  find  accordingly  ;  it  does  not  occur  to  me.     I  will 
leave  the  case  to  you,  and  if  you  have  a  reasonable  doubt,  not  such  as 
idle  or  fanciful  men  may  take  up  on  remote  probabilities,  but  such  as 
cannot  satisfy  your  judgments  upon  your  oaths,  then  you  will  acquit. 
If  you  have  no  such  doubt,  you  will  find  them  guilty.     I  have  not 
dilated  upon  this  case ;  perhaps  the  horror  of  the  offence  might  lead 
me  farther  than  I  ought  to  go.     You  are  rational  men,  and  you  will 
determine  according  to  your  consciences  whether  you  believe  these 
men  guilty  or  not. 

The  jury  retii'ed  for  about  ten  minutes,  and  returned  with  a  verdict 
finding  James  Connor  and  James  Dempsey — Not  Guilty ;  but  all  the 
other  persons  named  in  the  indictment.  Guilty. 

Thursday,  March  3d  1796. 

Both  the  grand  juries  were  called  over. 

The  prisoners  found  guilty  upon  the  indictment  for  the  conspiracy 
were  brought  up  to  receive  judgment. 

Lord  Clonmel  addressed  the  prisoners  and  said — I  trust  you  will 
believe  me,  when  I  tell  you,  that  I  never  left  this  court  with  more 
i-eal  concern,  than  I  did  the  first  day  you  were  called  up  here.  I  saw, 
as  indeed  at  present,  with  sorrow  and  pain,  ten  decent  looking  men, 
above  want,  with  no  appearance  of  distress,  with  nothing  to  provoke 
them — with  every  reason  to  hope  that  they  were,  and  would  be,  and 


476  TRIALS   OF 

had  been  as  useful  members  of  society  as  any  other  ten  men  in  the 
community.  Look  at  them  (said  his  lordship,  turning  to  the  grand 
juries)  and  see  whether  you  do  not  participate  with  me — they  have 
the  appearance  either  of  tradesmen  or  farmers,  or  of  that  class  of 
citizens  that  might  well  have  supported  themselves  by  honest  means,i 
carrying  on  an  honest  livelihood,  and  making  themselves  as  respect- 
able as  any  men,  or  set  of  men  in  the  state  (turning  to  the  jirisoners). 
You  may  think  then,  with  what  painful  distress  I  heard  the  offence 
against  you,  which  the  jury  believed,  notwithstanding  every  circmn- 
stance  that  might  be  urged  in  your  favour ;  because  ten  of  you  were 
tried  together,  your  number  would  be  a  circumstance  to  induce  a  jury 
to  lean  in  your  ftivour,  if  they  had  not  been  clear  in  the  evidence 
against  you.  You  have  just  heard  sentence  of  death  pronounced 
against  a  wretched  soldier  in  your  presence.*  You,  every  one  of 
you,  owe  to  your  prosecutor.  Smith,  whom  you  conceive  to  be  a 
subject  of  great  detestation — you  owe  to  him,  that  the  same  sentence 
which  you  have  heard  pronounced  upon  the  soldier,  has  not  been 
repeated  against  every  one  of  you,  and  that  you  are  not  the  subject 
of  that  infamous  punishment.  You  have  been  cliarged  upon  the 
clearest  evidence  with  conspiring  to  murder  a  fellow-creature,  who 
never  gave  personal  offence  to  any  of  you.  And  see  under  what 
circumstances  you  appear — and  it  is  necessary  you  should  know  the 
horror  of  the  offence.  This  act,  from  its  commencement  to  the 
perpetration  of  it  contained  no  small  space  of  time.  I  know  not 
what  communion  you  are  of — four  Sundays  intervened  upon  which 
you  went  to  religious  worship,  with  this  horror  upon  your  minds,  and 
the  very  day  you  fixed  vipon  to  perpeti'ate  the  offence  was  Sunday, 
as  if  you  Avere  outraging  against  God  Almighty. 

You  have  had  time  to  make  your  defence.  I  will  state  a  few  of 
the  leading  circumstances  of  the  evidence  and  with  the  sanction  that 
the  jury  have  given  it  by  their  verdict  upon  their  oaths,  and  they 
were  all  respectable  citizens.  The  case  against  you  was  this : — 
Glennan  had  a  brother-in-law  in  the  gaol  of  Naas,  and  he  was 
informed  against  with  ten  or  eleven  other  Defenders  by  the  person 
you  had  conspired  to  murder — his  name  was  John  Hanlon.  While 
those  people  were  in  gaol,  Glennan  and  his  wife  got  hold  of  Smith, 
who  had  been  a  Defender  himself  from  1795.  That  appeared  from 
these  circumstances.  He  swore,  that  in  the  presence  of  several  he 
tendered  his  information  three  times  at  the  Castle  of  Dublin,  the  first 
time  so  early  as  January,  1795,  one  whole  year  before  this  transaction. 
He  was  there  examined  and  gave  information  against  several 
Defenders,  who  had  sworn  to  be  true  to  the  National  Convention — to 
follow  that  fugitive  traitor,  Hamilton  Rowan,  and  also  to  follow 
Napper  Tandy  and  two  other  persons — the  sound  of  the  name  of  one 
is  respectable  to  my  ear.  Sir  Edward  Bellew — the  other.  Cole,  I  know 
nothing  of.  Smith,  with  others,  was  sworn  to  support  Defenders. 
He  was  examined  two  or  three  times  by  the  confidential  servants  of 
government  from  January,  1795,  to  April,  1795.  Now  you  all  heard 
and  saw  what  passed  in  the  autumn  of  1795.     It  has  been  conveyed 

*  His  lordsliip  had  a  few  minutes  before  passed  sentence  upon  Mulhern,  a  private 
in  the  Donegal  Militia,  for  murder. 


THE    DEFENDERS.  477 

ito  the  public  through  other  lips,  that  is  the  evidence  of  Lawler, 
between  whom  and  Smith  it  never  was  pretended  there  was  any 
knowledge.  Hanlon  gave  information  against  a  set  of  people  who 
had  vowed  vengeance  against  a  respectable  clergyman,  Mr.  Walsh, 
and  in  order  to  take  away  the  testimony  of  Hanlon,  one  scheme  of 
murder  was  to  follow  the  other.  Glenuan  had  undertaken  to  lay 
hold  of  Smith,  who  at  this  time  was  in  the  Artillery,  to  which  he  had 
fled,  not  thinking  there  was  assistance  to  be  had  at  the  Castle  at  that 
time.  Glennan  formed  the  plan  so  early  as  Januaiy,  1796,  and  con- 
sidered Smith  as  a  proper  person  to  seduce  the  unhappy  man  into 
their  power — for  that  is  one  part  of  their  execrable  system,  treason 
ito  be  executed  by  murder.  The  mode  was  this : — Smith  was  to 
deliver  Hanlon  into  their  hands,  they  were  to  take  him  along  the 
meadoAvs,  and  put  him  to  death  and  throw  his  body  into  the  river, 
and  Kane  said,  "  as  soon  as  it  is  fixed  I  will  on  the  Friday  after  be 
able  to  march  18,000  men  into  Dublin."  Whether  he  lied  or  not,  or 
could  do  so  or  not,  it  is  sworn  he  made  the  declaration.  The  import 
of  the  oath  taken  was  to  serve  certain  persons,  who  were  named,  to 
recover  their  estates,  sweep  clean  the  Protestants  and  leave  none  alive. 
Which  of  you  made  use  of  this  expression  constitutes  no  variation 
as  to  the  argument — that  was  the  general  purport  of  Defenders — it 
has  been  sworn  to  by  great  numbers  of  people.  The  impression  I 
wish  to  make  is,  that  this  is  not  an  idle  tale,  but  that  there  is  existing, 
and  has  been  for  some  time,  a  horrid  system  of  murder  and  treason, 
the  seeds  of  which  were  sown  by  such  men  as  Rowan  and  Tandy, 
who  have  fled  from  their  country.  I  wish  that  masters  of  families 
were  more  attentive  to  their  children  and  their  families  in  the  early 
part  of  their  lives.  I  have  endeavoured  to  save  the  youth  of  this 
town.     By  two  examples  I  have  endeavoured  to  save  the  rest. 

Masters  should  have  some  care  that  children  and  apprentices  be 
not  brought  to  the  gallows  in  a  hurry.  Every  master  of  a  family 
should  be  accountable  for  his  family,  and  not  suffer  them  to  resort  to 
punch-houses — first  letting  them  get  together,  then  they  are  infected 
and  made  authors  of  the  worst  offences.  From  the  3d  of  January 
down  to  the  last  day  of  the  month,  when  this  horrid  plot  was  pre- 
paring against  Hanlon,  it  appears  that  Glennan  was  the  person  to 
bring  the  boys  about  him.  Smith  informed  Lane,  and  by  well  con- 
certed conduct,  and  the  spirit  and  vigilance  of  Alderman  Alexander, 
this  horrid  and  infamous  scheme  was  prevented  from  execution,  which 
might  have  been  perpetrated  in  half  an  hour  after. 

One  of  the  Prisoners. — My  lord,  there  were  five  of  us  chandlers 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  business — we  had  come  from  chapel. 

Lord  Clonmel. — Five  chandlers  together  on  a  Sunday  evening 
in  a  punch-house !  You  should  have  been  in  your  own  places.  You 
talk  of  a  chapel,  that  brings  another  part  of  the  case  into  my  mind. 
Let  it  be  recollected,  that  Hamilton  Rowan  was,  or  professed  to  be,  a 
Protestant.  Jackson  was  a  Protestant  clergyman,  and,  therefore,  let 
not  an  expression  of  mine  be  supposed  to  apply  to  those  of  any  per- 
suasion. I  am  in  too  high  a  situation  to  fear  any  man,  or  class  of 
men.  I  thank  God,  I  am  in  a  situation  which  puts  me  above  politics. 
I  have  but  one  view — to  exterminate  this  evil  from  the  country,  if 
I  can. 


478  TRIALS    OF 

What  you  have  said,  has  not  suggested  any  circumstance  in  your 
favour.  But  take  it  in  another  point  of  vieAV.  I  suppose  the  persons 
I  have  learned  were  professedly  of  the  Protestant  religion.  What  is 
doing  in  France  ?  There,  Roman  Catholics  are  drowning  in  hundreds  ; 
even  their  own  clergymen  are  packed  together  and  extei'minated.  So 
that  religic  >  is  made  a  pretence.  "  We  may  begin  with  Protestants, 
but  the  nexi  day  we  begin  upon  another  class,"  and  so  they  will  pro- 
ceed to  a  thii  1,  until  they  destroy  each  other.  Let  me  go  further, 
and  suppose  they  succeed.  If  the  streets  of  the  city  flowed  with  the 
blood  of  Pi'otestants,  that  would  answer  no  purpose.  When  the 
Protestants  of  this  country  were  fewer  and  weaker,  by  thousands, 
than  they  are  now,  they  were  able  to  establish  themselves,  and  they 
never  can  be  borne  down  but  by  their  own  timidity  and  Avant  of 
spirit.  Would  it  benefit  the  Roman  Catholics  ?  Certainly  not.  They 
have  been  told  so,  and  the  oath  is  the  ceremony  which  binds  vv'icked 
hearts  together:  and  if  one  class  of  men  were  destroyed,  another 
would  succeed,  and  every  man,  having  anything  to  lose,  Avould  fall 
under  the  knife.  Suppose  them  to  succeed  in  this,  and  that  these 
associated  people  were  wicked  to  damnation,  if  they  have  any  sense  of 
it,  would  it  ansAver  them,  if  they  had  destroyed  every  Roman  Catholic 
of  property  in  the  country  ?  No.  The  country  is  a  great  one,  and 
worth  fighting  for,  and  if  they  destroyed  every  man  of  property,  the 
countiy  would  be  conquered  again.   Therefore,  it  is  a  fallacious  system. 

God  and  nature  have  joined  England  and  Ireland  together — it  is 
impossible  to  separate  them,  and  if  bands  of  ruffians  started  up  in 
every  part,  they  could  not  hold  the  dominion  of  murder  for  a  month. 
I  have  seen  with  pain,  that  this  phrenzy  has  got  among  the  people  of 
Ireland  ;  and  if  it  be  a  phrenzy,  prisons  are  their  safest  mad-houses. 
What  is  the  situation  of  Meath  ?  Rich  almost  beyond  any  neighbour- 
ing county ;  the  farmer  happy,  the  peasantry,  yeomen,  and  gentry  all 
delighted  with  their  situation,  because  all  were  independent.  How 
is  it  altered  ?  Whence  is  it,  that  unhappy  county  has  become  a  sort 
of  slaughter-house  ?  From  the  practices  of  some  Avicked-minded 
people — who  they  are  I  knoAV  not, — God  forgive  them.  They  Avill 
fall  victims  of  the  law,  against  Avhich  they  are  struggling.  While 
the  countries  round  are  perishing  through  the  horrors  of  war  and 
famine,  Ireland  could  not  say,  there  was  a  creature  unfed  or  unpro- 
vided for.  Why  ?  Because  the  bad  are  fed  by  the  good,  and  the 
south  feeds  the  disturbers  of  the  north  ;  and  if  the  country  had  been 
left  to  the  Defenders,  and  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  industry  of  the 
south,  there  might  have  been  one  universal  famine.  What,  then,  are 
these  distracted  and  unhappy  people  told  ?  But,  in  truth,  I  early  saAv, 
and  spoke  of  it  in  acts  of  my  duty,  here  and  elsewhere,  that  the  mis- 
chief originated  in  nests  of  clubs  in  the  city  of  Dublin.  Dublin  is  the 
mint  for  coining  treason  and  circulating  it  in  small  parts,  and  mak- 
ing it  current.  A  number  of  young  persons,  with  trades  which  might 
make  them  respectable,  not  in  Avant,  no  appearance  of  it,  are  become 
the  most  active  agents.  And  here  I  must  mention  a  circumstance 
— you  must  feel  the  Aveight  of  it.  There  never  Avas  a  time,  Avhen 
persons  of  your  description  had  less  reason  to  complain.  Look  at 
the  canals  and  various  public  works.  Thousands  of  the  poor  are 
employed  and  supplied  Avith  work,  even  in  the  time  of  Avar.     Within 


THE    DEFENBERS.  479 

these  five  or  six  years  past,  many  persons  have  looked  to  the  state 
i  of  the  poor,  and  endeavoured  to  make  them  all  comfortable  and  easy  ; 
'  and  yet  this  is  the  time  in  which  this  phrenzy  has  seized  such  num- 
bers. Is  this  an  idle  tale  ?  is  it  not  notorious  that  cruel  and  horrid 
murders  have  been  committed  upon  witnesses,  just  at  the  eve  of  the 
commission  ?  Is  it  not  part  of  the  system  spread  through  the  country 
to  destroy  witnessess  ?  Two  creatures,  because  they  were  witnesses, 
or  supposed  to  be  witnesses,  have  been  brutally  murdered,  in  the 
dead  of  the  night,  at  the  gate  of  a  man  who  deserves  as  well  from 
this  countiy  as  any  other  man  in  it.  He  who  has  employed  so  many 
of  the  poor  to  improve  and  embellish  the  most  improved  place  in  that 
part  of  the  country  where  he  resides.  Few  people  are  willing  to  do 
as  much  as  he  did.  I  have  known  him  to  have  two  military  commis- 
sions. He  quieted  the  south  without  a  single  person  falling  a  sacrifice, 
and  he  quieted  the  west  with  the  thanks  of  that  country.  Yet  two 
persons  were  murdered  at  his  gate,  because  they  were  witnesses. 

What  must  be  the  situation  of  persons  of  his  description,  if  the 
country  be  made  disagreeable  to  them  ?  The  land  will  be  abandoned 
by  all  the  proprietors  and  the  tenantry  will  be  left  to  be  worried  by 
tribes  of  agents  and  managers : — Their  landlords  will  never  see  them. 

So  that  taking  this  subject  in  every  point  of  view,  it  is  the  most 
wicked  system  of  murder  and  treason  that  ever  was  heard  of  in  any 
country,  that  for  some  years  past  has  disgraced  mine  own. 

A  very  old  author  discoursing  upon  Irishmen,  says,  "  where  Irish- 
men are  good,  is  it  impossible  to  find  better,  where  they  are  bad,  it  is 
impossible  to  find  worse."  I  am  afraid,  we  have  got  to  this  alternative. 
Treachery  was  never  the  character  of  Irishmen.  Courage  and 
intrepdity  were  their  characteristics.  Every  creature  is  taught  to 
fight,  but  boldly  and  fairly.  But  it  was  not  until  this  system, 
founded  upon  the  French  mode,  the  total  want  of  all  principle,  that 
we  began  to  be  disgraced. 

I  have  gone  thus  far  to  shew  the  consequences  of  this  wicked  and 
black  system  by  which  you  have  been  seduced,  bringing  destruction 
upon  yourselves  and  everything  dear  to  you.  I  now  come  to  the 
sentence,  which  I  am  obliged  to  pronounce  upon  you. 

I  have  received  two  or  three  petitions  this  morning  upon  this  sub- 
ject. I  am  bound  by  the  verdict  of  the  jury.  It  is  a  calamitous 
thing  to  think,  that  decent  persons  like  you  can  be  seduced.  The 
witness  swore  that  ten  were  equally  acquainted  with  the  intended 
murder.  He  acquitted  three.  But  all  the  rest,  he  said,  wei'e  ac- 
quainted with  the  design.  I  hope  the  example  of  this  day  will 
operate  through  the  city,  and  all  parts  of  the  kingdom.  You  must 
have  many  relations.  I  will  not  wound  them  by  exposing  you  in  the 
streets  ;  to  send  them  home  with  sorrow  and  shame.  For  their  sakes 
as  well  as  your  own  I  will  not  do  it. 

But  you  must  be  punished  and  therefore  each  of  you  is  to  be 
imprisoned  three  years,  pay  a  fine  of  £50  and  give  security  for  your 
good  behaviour  for  seven  years  commencing  from  the  expiration  of 
your  imprisonment. 


END  OF  THE  TRIALS  OF  THE  DEFENBERS. 


INTRODUCTION 


TO    THE 


TRIAL   OF    FINERTY 


Some  short  account  of  William  Orr,  is  the  fittest  introduction  to  the 
celebrated  Trial  of  Peter  Finerty,  as  the  latter  was  indicted  for  a 
libel  written  on  the  subject  of  Orr's  fate. 

No  incident  occurred  during  the  eight  years  which  preceded  the 
rebellion  of  1798  so  full  of  melancholy  interest  as  the  trial  and  the 
death  of  William  Orr.  It  was  pregnant  with  consequences  of  greater 
import  than  usually  follow  the  destruction  of  a  single  victim,  particu- 
larly where  he  is  a  man  of  humble  position  and  of  no  striking  talents. 

William  Orr  was  a  farmer,  of  independent  circumstances,  in  the 
county  of  Anti'im.  He  was  a  Presbyterian,  and  of  strict  religious 
principles.  His  character  in  every  relation  of  life  was  of  the  most 
exemplary  kind.  He  was  a  rough,  bold  man,  whose  courage,  homeli- 
ness and  warmth  won  love  from  all  who  knew  him.  In  addition  to 
his  high  moral  qualities,  his  generous  charity,  his  domestic  truth 
and  public  spirit — ^lie  was  blessed  with  a  fine  figure  and  a  handsome 
face.  Such  was  one  of  those  whom  a  bad,  immoral  government 
selected  for  destruction ;  and  succeeded  in  destroying,  by  means  as  foul 
as  ever  disgraced  the  most  inhuman  tyranny. 

The  Insurrection  Act  had  passed  (Feb.  1796).  It  punished  with 
death  the  administering  of  the  United  Irishman's  oath ;  and  created 
a  number  of  new  crimes  thei'etofoi'e  unknown  to  the  law.  Its  conse- 
quences were  soon  felt.  The  country  swarmed  with  villains  of  the 
most  profligate  class,  sAvearing  away  the  lives  of  men  and  earning 
the  liberal  blood-money  which  profusely  flowed  from  the  corrupt 
fountain-head,  at  the  Castle.  It  was  a  crime — the  administering  of 
an  oath — easy  of  proof ;  and  the  facility  with  which  the  sacrifice  was 
efiected,  and  the  liberality  with  which  it  was  paid  for,  held  out  irre- 
sistible temptations  to  a  class  of  miscreants  that  is  invariably  called 
into  existence  by  a  government  that  will  use  and  reward  the  most 

abandoned  perfidy. 

2  I 


482  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

William  Orr  was  put  upon  his  trial*  on  the  18th  September  1797, 
at  Carrickfei'gus,  and  arraigned  on  an  indictment,  framed  under  the 
Insurrection  Act,  for  having  administered  an  unlawful  oath  to  a  man 
of  the  name  of  Hugh  Wheatly,  a  private  soldier  in  the  Fifeshire 
regiment  of  Fencibles. 

Wheatly  swore.  That  in  April,  1796,  he  had  been  in  Scotland  on 
furlough,  and  was  on  his  return  by  Antrim  to  join  his  regiment  then 
quartered  at  Derry.  That  he  then,  upon  the  24th  or  25  th  of  that 
month,  met  with  several  persons  who  swore  him  into  the  brotherhood 
of  United  Irishmen,  and  afterwards  took  him  to  the  house  of  the 
prisoner,  whom  they  found  employed  in  sowing  flax  in  his  field.  He 
swore  that  an  assembly  was  called  in  the  house  of  the  prisoner,  who 
acted  as  chairman  or  secretary,  which  he  called  a  Baronial  committee  ; 
and  that  there  it  was  debated,  whether  he  should  be  entrusted  with  the 
printed  constitutions  of  the  society,  in  order  to  promote  the  institution 
among  his  fellow  soldiers.  That  it  was  agreed  that  he  should  have 
one.  That  an  oath  was  thereupon  administered  to  him  by  the  pri- 
soner, which  was  to  keep  the  secrets  of  United  Irishmen,  and  not  for 
any  reward  or  punishment  to  discover  of  them.  The  witness  threw 
in  many  circvimstances  about  arms  and  a  Northern  Star,  which  were 
shown  to  him,  also  a  draw-well  to  put  the  aristocrats  into. 

He  swore  that  all  he  did  was  through  fear  of  his  life,  which  they 
threatened.  That  he  was  told  they  had  armed  men  enough  to  get  a 
reform  by  force,  if  they  could  not  by  fair  means  ;  and  that  if  they  did 
not  get  a  reform  by  fair  means,  they  would  overturn  the  government. 
He  said,  that  the  intention  of  the  society,  and  consequently  of  the 
prisoner,  was  to  assist  the  French ;  that  it  was  so  explained  to  him, 
and  that  at  that  meeting  it  was  so  determined  ;  and  added  many  cir- 
cumstances of  aggravation,  tending  to  represent  the  oath  and  the 
association  as  heinously  wicked  and  treasonable.  And  at  same  time 
swore,  that  the  book  from  which  the  oath  was  administered  was  given 
to  him  as  his  guide.f 

A  second  witness  was  called  (Lindsey,  another  of  the  same  regi- 
ment), who  said  he  was  in  the  room  when  an  oath  was  administered, 
but  he  knew  nothing  of  its  nature,  whether  it  was  innocent  or  guilty, 
lawful  or  unlawful. 

The  counsel  for  the  prisoner,  Mr.  Curran  and  Mi*.  Sampson,  now 
insisted,  that  from  the  evidence  in  this  case,  if  the  prisoner  was  guilty 
of  anything  it  was  of  high  treason — that  they  believed  him  innocent 
of  that  and  every  such  charge  ;  but  in  order  that  that  matter  might 

*  There  is  no  correct  report  of  the  trial,  and  it  is  therefore  offered  in  the  shape 
of  a  narrative,  ample  enough  to  illustrate  the  trial  of  Finerty,  which  sprung  from  it. 

■f  See  account  of  Orr's  Trial,  p.  2. 


I 

TRIAL   OF  FINERTY.  483 

be  investigated  according  to  the  known  law  and  constitution  of  the 
country,  the  present  indictment  must  be  given  up,  or  quashed,  and  a 
bill  for  high  treason  sent  up,  otherwise  it  was  in  vain  that  the  wisdom 
of  former  times,  that  the  experience  of  ages,   and  the  voice  of  the 
) wisest  and  most  upright  judges  hath  allowed  and  sanctioned,  the 
statute  25th  Edward  III.,  called  by  Lord  Coke  "  the  blessed  statute," 
I  as  the  parliament  which  enacted  it  was  called  Parliamentum  Bene- 
dictum.     It  was  in  vain  that  this  excellent  statute,  never  deviated 
from  but  for  the  worst  of  purposes,  and  in  the  worst  of  times,  had 
1  given  to  the  accused  of  treason  so  many  securities  against  that  power 
1  ever  too  likely  to  be  exerted  against  an  individual  accused  and  prose- 
Icuted  by  the  crown,  for  any  alleged   offence   directly  against   the 
I  royal  power.     Experience  had  shown  how  horribly  the  accusations 
'  for  high  treason  had  been  multiplied  by  princes,  or  their  ministers — 
how  hard  it  was  for  any  subject  to  have   a  fair  trial  against  whom 
the  angry  brow  of  offended  royalty  was  knit ;    against  whom  the 
public  treasure  of  the  nation  was  lavishly  employed  ;  against  whom 
influence,    authority   and   power,    open    and    secret,    were    hostilely 
arrayed ;  when  the  sheriff  might  be  a  dependant  on  the  bounty  of 
the  crown,  as  in  times  of  baseness  and  oppression  usually  had  been 
the  case,  since  sheriffs  ceased  to  be  elected  by  the  people  ;  who  might 
be  induced  to  select  from  his  county,  not  the  indifferent,  the  disinter- 
ested, and  unbiassed,  to  pass  judgment  upon  their  fellow  creature's 
life,  but  the  ignorant,  the  bigotted,  the  servile,  or  the  mercenary  ; 
who,  like  the  executioner,  forgetting  that  they  were  sworn  to  judge 
of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  according  to  the  evidence, 
and  make  true  deliverance  between  the  king  and  the  prisoner,  might 
only  await  the  beckon  of  authority  to  do  their  office.     So  careful  had 
the  law  of  England  been  to  guard  against  the  various  ways  by  which 
power  might  oppress  and  defence  be  borne  down  ;  against  the  partiality 
or  frailty  of  judges,  juries,  factions  and  parties,  that  in  England  a 
man  to  be  tried  for  such  an  offence  as  was  now  atteinpted  to  be 
proved,  would,  under  the  25th  Edward  III.,  have  a  list  of  his  jurors 
delivered  to  him  in  due  time,  in  order  to  be  well  prepared  to  chal- 
lenge such  as  he  did  not  think  impartial.     He  would  be  entitled  to 
thirty-five  peremptory  challenges,  and  as  many  more  as  he  could 
shew  reasonable  cause  for  challenging.     He  would  be  entitled  to  a 
list  of  witnesses  for  a  length  of  time  previous  to  his  trial,  in  order  to 
enable  him  to  sift  their  character,  and  if  it  was  bad  or  vile,  to  be  able 
to  make  that  important  circumstance  appear  to  the  jury,  so  as  to  set 
aside  such  testimony  in  the  whole,   or  in  part,   as  the  case  might 
warrant ;  and  two  witnesses,  at  least,  must  swear  to  the  same  treason 
before  he  eould  be  affected.     He  would  also  be  entitled  to  a  copy  of 


484  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

his  indictment  five  days,  at  least,  before  his  trial,  in  order  to  apprise 
him  of  the  exact  nature  of  the  charge  to  which  he  was  to  apply  his 
defence.     And,  lastly,  he  would  be  allowed  by  his  two  counsel  to  j! 
make  a  defence  by  observations  upon  the  law  and  the  fact  of  his  case,  ;| 
and  to  utter  fully  and  boldly  whatever  might  tend  to  direct  the  con-  |t 
sciences  or  inform  the  understandings  of  his  jury  as  to  his  intention,  '1 
which  is,  in   other  words,  as   to  his  innocence   or  guilt.     For  some    I 
reason,  which  might  be  matter  of  curiosity,  but  nothing  to  the  present  ;' 
case — there  was  less  protection  and  less  indulgence  to  the  accused  in  ; 
Ireland ;  but  still  there  was  a  great  deal  in  case  of  treason  to  make  the   ' 
law  esteemed.     But  see  how  all  these  wise  and  boasted  provisions  of  : 
freedom  and  glories  of  the  English  law  will  be  filched  away,  if  high   ; 
treason,  (for  such   it  is  if  anything,)  specially  prosecuted   by  the   i 
crown,  out  of  the  stock-purse  of  the  nation,  by  the   king's  attorney-    > 
general,  and  other  select  and  able  lawyers  of  the  crown,  in  times  so 
heated,  and  a  situation  so  critical,  that  if  ever  there  was  occasion  for 
these  blessed  protections  against  prejudice  and  power,  it  is  that  time, 
when  so  great  a  part  of  the  community  is  accused,  and  secret  informers 
publicly  advertised  for,  if  high  treason  be  tried  under  this  Insurrection 
Act,  made  hastily  on  the  spur  of  an  unfortunate  occasion,  and  happily 
if  not  already  expired,  shortly  about  to  do  so.     The  prisoner  will  be 
tried  it  is  true,  and  possibly  be  found  guiUy  ;  but  it  will  be  a  finding 
contrary  to  the  most  sacred  law,  and  a  violation  of  that  statute  which 
stands  now  almost  singly  the  glory  of  our  national  jurisprudence, 
and  the  bulwark  of  public  security.     Better  it  would  be  to  wait  until 
the  legislature  should  repeal  or  suspend  this  statute,  if  they  so  thought 
fit,  as  they  had  already  done  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  than  for  a 
court  of  justice  thus  directly  to  do  so  by  trying,  under  another  form, 
that  which  if  it  be  anything  is  high  treason.     For  thus  the  unfortu- 
nate prisoner  is  deprived  of  every  safeguard,  and  even  of  that  natural 
right  of  the  accused,  to  explain  his  own  intentions  and  reason  upon 
the  nature  of  the  testimony  oiFered  against  him.      Perhaps  a  few 
observations  by  those  whose  professions  have  taught  them  to  discri- 
minate between  the  fictitious  and  artful  relations  of  a  hired  informer 
and  the  simple  tale  of  truth,  might  tend  to  save  the  life  of  an  innocent 
and  honest  man  ;  if  so,  terrible  indeed  would  be  the  consequence  of 
the  prevention.     That  peculiarity  in  our  law,  that  though  in  cases  of 
the  smallest  import  counsel  shall  be  heard  at  length,  whereas  in  capital 
felonies  their  mouths  shall  be  shut,  is  reconciled  by  supj)osing  the 
judge  a  counsel  for  the  prisoner  ;  but  that  was  a  forced  supposition, 
and  against  the  fact  and  the  nature  of  mankind.     The  makers  of  the 
wise  statutes  of  treason  knew  that  judges  were  men  in  a  station 
greatly  exposed   to   influence,  and  guarded  against  their  frailties. 


TRIAIi  OF  FINERTY.  485 

They  knew  that  judges,  however  upright  in  their  intentions,  could 
not  take  the  pains  of  studying  a  prisoner's  case  as  he  himself  or  his 
counsel  could  ;  and  that  in  any  cause  which  implied  a  contention 
between  the  higher  order  of  society  and  the  lower,  with  which  they 
had  neither  intercourse  nor  fellow-feeling,  it  required  virtue,  sagacity, 
and  magnanimity  enough  to  be  merely  indifferent.  That  a  most 
cogent  reason  for  adhering  to  the  good  old  law,  and  the  exact  and 
precise  classification  of  offences  was,  that  in  this  very  case,  though 
the  prisoner  was  tried  and  acquitted  under  this  indictment,  yet  it 
could  not  be  pleaded  in  bar  without  averments  dangerous  and  difficult 
to  an  indictment  for  high  treason,  which  might  be  supported  by  the 
identical  testimony,  and  thus  a  man  might  be  put  twice  in  jeopardy 
of  his  life  for  the  same  offence. 

Mr.  Attorney- General  made  a  very  short  reply  to  these  argu- 
ments ;  he  called  upon  any  man  to  say  in  what  instance  he  had 
prosecuted  with  any  unbecoming  rigour  ;  and  whether,  on  the  part 
of  the  crown,  throughout  the  circuit,  the  business  had  not  been 
conducted  as  mildly  and  as  mercifully  as  possible.  He  also  made 
some  observations  upon  what  seemed  to  him  an  extraordinary  motion, 
where  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  sought  to  have  their  client  tried 
for  a  deeper  and  more  penal  offence  than  that  for  which  he  had  been 
already  indicted  by  the  crown.  He  could  not  conceive  that  the 
gentlemen  expected  any  further  benefit  from  this  motion,  than  that 
it  gave  them  an  opportunity  of  addressing  the  passions  of  the 
audience. 

The  Lord- Chief  Baron,  after  hearing  both  the  prisoner's  counsel 
at  length,  refused  the  motion,  observing  that  he  had  heard  it  patiently, 
by  which  it  might  appear,  that  the  prisoner  had  no  cause  to  complain 
of  rigour  or  hardship,  although  the  arguments  seemed  not  so  much 
directed  to  him,  as  artfully  and  ingeniously  designed,  under  the  pre- 
tence of  addi'essing  the  court,  to  affect  the  minds  of  the  jury  and 
by-standers.* 

The  prisoner  entered  upon  his  defence,  and  successfully  impeached 
the  testimony  of  the  two  crown  witnesses  in  the  most  important 
particulars ;  but  the  Lord  Chief-Baron  (Lord  Avonmore),  who 
appears  in  this  tragedy  as  no  unwilling  instrument  of  blind  vindictive 
law,  forcibily  charged  the  jury  against  the  prisoner,  and  dwelt  with 
inconsiderate  and  most  misplaced  zeal  on  the  sufficiency  of  Wlieatly's 
testimony  to  induce  them  to  convict.  He  told  them  that  he  was  a 
man  of  an  education  above  his  rank,  and  that  his  evidence  was  of  the 
most  satisfactory  nature.     The  jury  retired  at  seven  in  the  evening 

*  Account  of  the  Trial,  p.  4. 


486  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE 

and  remained  in  the  box  until  six  in  the  morning.  How  they  spent 
that  frightful  interval — in  what  hellish  orgies  they  passed  the  night 
will  be  presently  seen ;  that  they  had  not  altogether  drowned  the 
the  voice  of  conscience  and  mercy  is  very  clear  from  the  qualified 
verdict  they  felt  desirous  of  giving. 

When  asked  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  if  they  were  agreed,  no 
answer  was  made  for  some  time — the  question  being  repeated,  the 
foreman,  much  distressed,  answered,  "  We  leave  him  in  your  lordship's 
mercy — he  is  in  your  lordship's  mercy."  On  which  the  judge  desired 
them  to  return  and  consider  of  their  verdict.  Ten  of  them  only 
returned,  two  remaining  without.  They  returned  again,  and  very 
nearly  the  same  thing  was  repeated,  and  it  was  not  till  the  third  time, 
the  foreman  still  hesitating  to  pronounce  the  word  "guilty" — Mr. 
M'Naghten,  one  of  the  jury,  reprimanded  the  fox'eman,  calling  upon 
him  to  pronounce  the  prisoner  guilty — upon  which  the  foreman,  who 
was  a  man  in  years,  and  affected  even  to  the  loss  of  speech,  handed 
in  the  verdict,  with  a  recommendation  to  mercy,  which  was  taken  by 
the  clerk. 

The  judge  promised  to  lay  their  recommendation  before  govern- 
ment, and  it  was  understood  by  some,  that  he  would  represent  the 
case  favourably  himself.  But  on  the  following  day  he  mentioned  in 
court,  that  he  had  not  pledged  himself  so  to  do,  but  had  immediately 
transmitted  by  expx*ess  the  recommendation  of  the  jury. 

The  prisoner  heard  the  verdict  without  the  smallest  agitation, 
and  was  immediately  remanded  to  gaol.* 

Such  was  the  result  of  this  memorable  trial,  and  if  the  world  had 
heard  nothing  more  of  the  matter,  the  name  of  Orr  would,  indeed, 
have  been  remembered  with  love  by  those  who  knew  his  virtues — 
opinion  might  have  assumed  his  guilt  or  innocence — but  his  fate 
would  not  have  been  felt  by  the  whole  people  as  one  that  demanded 
vengeance  at  their  hands  upon  a  remorseless,  cruel,  inhuman  govern- 
ment. 

On  Monday  the  1 8th  September,  Mr.  Curran  moved  in  arrest  of 
j  udgment,  and  having  relied  upon  several  legal  points,  he  produced  to 
the  court  the  affidavits  of  three  of  the  jurors,  for  the  purpose  of  a 
further  motion  for  a  new  trial.  The  Attorney- General  expi*essed  his 
astonishment  at  the  idea  of  a  new  trial  in  capital  cases ;  the  affidavits 
were  not  permitted  to  be  used,  the  motion  was  refused,  and  the  unfor- 
tunate William  Orr  was  remanded  to  gaol. 

The  following  are  the  affidavits  of  the  jurors. 

"  Arthur  Johnston  and  Archibald  Thompson,  two  of  the  jury  who 

*  Account  of  the  trial,  p.  13. 


TRIAL  OF   FINERTY.  487 

were  impannelled  to  try  William  Orr,  depose  on  tlie  Holy  Evan- 
gelists, and  say,  that  after  they  had  retired  to  their  jury-room  to 
consider  their  verdict,  two  bottles  of  very  strong  whiskey  spirits  were 
conveyed  into  their  jury-room  through  the  window  thereof,  and  given 
to  and  the  greater  part  thereof  drank  by  the  said  jurors,  some  of 
whom  became  very  sick  and  unwell,  which  occasioned  their  vomiting 
before  they  gave  their  verdict.  And  deponent  Thompson  says,  that 
he  was  by  age  and  infirmity,  and  intimidation  used  to  him  by  Mr. 
James  M'Naghten,  one  of  said  jury,  induced  to  concur  in  said  verdict 
contrary  to  his  opinion. 

"  Sworn  before  me  this  20th  day  of  Sept.  1797,  in  court, 

"  Arthur  Johnston, 

"  Arch.  Thompson, 

"  Yelverton." 

"  George  Brooks  of  Innischaloughlin,  in  the  county  of  Antrim, 
farmer,  maketh  oath  and  saith  that  he,  this  deponent,  was  one  of  the 
jury  who  was  on  the  trial  of  "William  Orr,  who  was  charged  with 
administering  oaths.  Deponent  saith,  he  was  resolved  to  acquit  the 
said  William  Orr,  but  for  the  representations  of  some  of  his  fellow- 
jurors,  who  informed  this  deponent,  that  in  case  they,  the  said  jury, 
should  return  a  verdict  of  guilty,  the  said  William  Orr  would  not  be 
punished  with  death.  Deponent  further  saith,  that  if  he  had  at  that 
time  known,  that  the  consequence  of  returning  a  verdict  of  guilty  on 
the  said  William  Orr  would  be  his  death,  he,  this  deponent,  in. 
that  case,  would  not  have  consented  to  such  a  verdict,  but  would 
have  insisted  and  persevered  in  returning  a  verdict  of  the  said  William 
Orr's  not  being  guilty. 

"  Sworn  before  me  this  20th  day  of  Sept.  1797,  in  court, 

"  George  Brooks. 

"  Yelverton." 

Orr  received  sentence  of  death,  pronounced  by  Lord  Avonniore, 
with  a  show  of  sensibility  which,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand.  In  the  interval  between  the 
day  of  pi'onouncing  the  sentence,  and  the  day  fixed  for  its  execution 
(7th  of  October),  various  representations,  favourable  and  adverse  to 
Orr,  were  forwarded  to  the  executive.  But  there  was  one  Avhich  it 
is  almost  incredible  that  any  government  could  have  been  base  enough 
to  neglect,  and  made  by  the  Rev.  G.  Macartney,  the  magistrate  who 
had  taken  Wheatiys  examinations  against  the  prisoner.  He  pro- 
cured the  depositions  of  two  other  clergymen,  and  laid  them,  together 
with  his  own  affidavit,  before  the  Lord  Lieutenant.     That  affidavit 


488  INTRODUCTION    TO  THE 

and  these  depositions  are  here  preserved  as  monuments,  more  durable 
than  any  brass,  of  the  foul  inhumanity  of  the  government,  under 
which  our  ancestors  had  the  misfortune  to  live. 

County  of  \  The  affidavit  of  the  Rev.  George  Macartney,  Doctor  of 
Antrim.    )  Laws,  a  magistrate  for  said  county. 

Who,  being  duly  sworn  and  examined  on  oath,  saith,  "  That  he 
took  the  depositions  of  Hugh  Wheatly  against  William  Orr,  now 
under  sentence  of  death  for  administering  the  United  Irishmen's  oath 
to  said  Wheatly  in  April,  1796.  Examinant  further  saith,  that  at 
spring  assizes,  in  1797,  when  it  was  thought  that  said  Orr's  trial  would 
be  brought  on  for  said  charge,  and  said  Wheatly  was  desired  by  Mr. 
Kemmis  and  examinant  to  attend  the  court ;  that  said  Wheatly  came 
to  examinant  in  court,  and  told  him  he  had  something  of  importance 
to  communicate  to  him,  and  on  examinant's  going  out  of  court  with 
said  Wheatly,  he  said  he  had  seen  a  Mr.  Elder,  a  clergyman,  whom 
he  had  seen  in  April,  1796  (when  he  was  on  his  way  from  Antrim  to 
Londonderry  to  join  his  regiment),  at  Rasharkin,  a  few  minutes  before 
walking  in  the  street  of  Carrickfergus ;  that  he  was  certain  he  was 
brought  t.here  to  invalidate  his  testimony  against  Orr,  from  a  conver- 
sation that  had  passed  between  him  and  said  Elder,  when  at  Rasharkin 
in  April,  1796,  which  conversation  examinant  believes  must  have 
been  the  conversation  alluded  to  in  Mr.  Elder's  affidavit,  hereunto 
subjoined. 

"  George  Macartney. 

"  Sworn  befoi-e  us  at  Quarter  Sessions,  the  3d  Oct.,  1797, 

"  Richard  Dobbs, 
"  Jackson  Clarke, 
"  DoGHERTY  Gorman, 
"  George  Moore." 

County  of  \  The  affidavit  of  the  Rev.  Jas.  Elder,  Dissenting  Minister 

Antrim.    J  of  the  parish  of  Finvoy,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 

Rasharkin,  in  said  county. 

Who,  being  duly  sworn  and  examined  on  oath,  saith,  "  That  in  the 

month  of  April,   1 796,  he  was  sent  for  by  a  Mrs.  Huey,  who  keeps  a 

public-house  in  Rasharkin  aforesaid,  to  visit  a  soldier,  who  appeared 

to  be  deranged  in  his  mind.     That  he  immediately  went  before  noon 

and  on  his  way  to  the  said  Mrs.  Huey's  house,  overtook  the  Rev. 

Alexander  Montgomery  (who  swore  the  annexed  affidavit  before  Lord 

O'Neil),  and  on  being  informed  that  the  said  soldier  had  attempted  to 

commit  suicide,  he  told  him  if  he  committed  that  crime,  he  would  put 

himself  out  of  the  reach  of  divine  mercy  ;  and  on  examinant's  praying 

by  him,  by  his  approbation,  he  seemed  more  calm,  but  said  that  his 

crimes  were  of  such  a  nature,  that  he  never  could  expect  to  be  for- 


TRIAL,  OF  FINERTY  489 

given.  On  which,  examinant  read  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son, 
and  other  passages  in  the  New  Testament  to  said  soldier,  intimating  to 
him  that  the  greatest  sinner  might  be  forgiven,  through  the  mediation 
of  Christ,  if  he  sincerely  repented ;  and  on  the  two  soldiers  and  Mrs. 
Huey,  who  had  attended  prayers,  having  left  the  room,  and  the  de- 
ranged soldier  and  the  above-named  Alexander  Montgomery  with 
examinant  remaining  in  the  room,  he  asked  who  he  was,  whence  he 
came,  and  where  he  was  going  ?  On  which,  he  said  his  name  was 
Wlieatly,  that  he  came  from  Maybole,  in  Scotland,  and  was  going  to 
Deny  to  join  his  regiment,  and  that  his  colonel's  name  was  Derham. 
And  on  being  asked  the  nature  of  his  crimes,  he  said  that  he  had 
been  guilty  of  seducing  women  in  Scotland,  which  he  considered  as  a 
great  crime,  which  was  a  great  weight  upon  his  mind.  That  he  went 
out  with  a  party  from  Londonderry  and  seized  an  unstatutable  still, 
under  the  direction  of  a  revenue  officer ;  that  the  party  was  surrounded 
by  a  number  of  people,  who  made  use  of  abusive  language,  on  which 
the  party  fired  on  the  people,  who  were  in  an  adjoining  field,  and 
that  he,  Wlieatly,  ran  a  man  through  with  his  bayonet,  which  he 
considered  as  murder,  and  which  hung  heavy  on  his  mind.  That  the 
revenue  officer  was  wounded  in  the  affray,  and  afterwards  sent  to 
gaol,  where  he  died  of  his  wounds  ;  and  that  he,  the  said  Wheatly, 
was  prevailed  on  to  swear  against  some  of  the  persons  who  were 
taken  prisoners,  a  false  oath,  for  which  he  was  afraid  they  would 
suffer,  which  also  hung  heavy  on  his  mind.  Examinant  further  saith, 
that  he  never  heard  that  William  Orr  was  accused  of  any  crime  by 
said  Wheatly,  until  he  saw  the  account  of  his  conviction  in  the  Bel- 
fast News  Letter,  nor  did  he  ever  hear  that  a  family  of  the  name  of 
Orr  resided  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Antrim,  except  the  family  of  Mr. 
Orr,  the  dissenting  minister  of  Killead,  until  he  saAv  the  account  of 
said  William  Orr,  as  a  respectable  farmer  in  the  neighbourhood  being 
convicted  by  the  testimony  of  the  said  Wheatly ;  nor  did  examinant,  to 
his  knowledge,  ever  see  any  of  the  family  of  the  said  Orr,  until  this 
morning,  the  3d  of  October  instant,  when  a  man,  who  said  he  was 
brother  of  this  said  William  Orr,  came  to  examinant's  house,  and 
requested  that  he  would  come  with  him  to  Ballymoney,  to  declare  to 
Mr.  Macartney  the  conversation  he  had  with  the  said  Wheatly  at 
Rasharkin,  in  April,  1796,  with  which  request  he  complied  out  of 
compassion,  having  no  other  interest  in  the  business. 
"  James  Elder. 

"  Sworn  before  us,  the  3d  day  of  October,  1797, 

"  Richard  Dobbs, 
"  Jackson  Clark, 
"  DoGHERTv  Gorman, 
"  George  Moore." 


490  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

County  of  \  Alexander  Montgomery  made  oath  before  me  this  day, 
Antrim.    )  "  That  he  was  present  at  Rasharkin  when  a  conver- 

sation took  place  between  the  Rev.  James  Elder,  of  the  parish  of 
Finvoy,  in  said  county,  and  Hugh  Wheatly,  of  the  Fifeshire  Fen- 
cibles,  who  appeared  very  uneasy  in  his  mind,  and  being  asked  by  the 
said  Mr.  Elder  the  cause  of  his  uneasiness,  he  replied  it  was  from 
some  great  crimes  which  he  had  committed ;  on  which  Mr.  Elder 
asked  him  the  nature  of  his  crimes,  when  said  Wheatly  confessed  he 
had  been  guilty  of  seduction,  murder,  and  perjury.  Examinant  further 
saith,  that  the  time  when  said  conversation  passed,  was  in  the  month 
of  April,  1796. 

"  Alex.  Montgomery. 

"  Sworn  before  me,  the  2d  day  of  October,  1797, 

"  O'Neill." 

A  respite  was  granted  till  the  10th,  and  a  further  one  to  the  14th 
of  October.  Meanwhile  memorials  were,  sent  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant 
praying  for  a  pardon — memorials  signed  by  the  most  respectable 
gentlemen  in  the  county  of  Antrim — and  demanding  the  pardon  as 
an  act  either  of  mercy,  justice,  or  policy.  But  it  was  vain  to  expect 
justice  or  mercy  at  the  Castle ;  and  the  policy  of  government  was 
one  irreconcileable  with  either  of  those  virtues.  Accordingly  William 
Orr  was  executed,  amidst  the  deep  and  smothered  rage  of  the  people, 
in  whose  hearts  his  memory  lived,  and  on  whose  flags  and  banners  of 
rebellion  his  name  was  afterwards  inscribed. 

On  Saturday  morning,  the  14th  October,  he  was  brought  out  from 
the  gaol,  in  which  he  had  consumed  the  last  year  of  his  existence ; 
and  though  his  complexion  was  somewhat  altered  from  the  glow  of 
health  which  it  formerly  wore,  the  more  than  ordinary  comeliness  of 
his  countenance  still  remained.  His  stature  was  fully  six  feet,  his 
person  graceful,  but  extremely  athletic,  and  of  those  proportions  which 
indicate  the  greatest  degree  of  bodily  activity  and  strength,  but, 
above  all,  there  was  in  his  aspect  a  mixture  of  firmness  and  sensibility 
which  seemed  to  shew  him  gifted  by  nature  with  a  generous  and 
elevated  spirit.  The  character  he  had  borne  amongst  his  neighbours 
confirmed  this  impression,  for  he  was  beloved  by  all ;  and  in  the 
relations  of  private  life,  as  a  father  and  a  husband,  his  conduct  was 
amiable  and  exemplary. 

When  he  understood  that  he  was  to  be  indulged  in  a  post-chaise  to 
convey  him  to  the  place  of  execution,  being  apprehensive  that  he 
might  have  soldiers  for  his  companions,  he  seemed  more  desirous  to 
Avalk,  in  order  to  ejijoy  the  company  of  the  two  clergymen,  Mr. 
Stavely  and  Mr.  Hill,  whom  he  had  requested  to  attend  him;  but 


TRIAL,  OF   FINERTY.  491 

these  gentlemen  being  permitted  to  go  with  him  in  the  carriage,  he 
arrived  at  the  place  of  execution  about  one  o'clock,  escorted  by  a  very 
strong  military  guard,  composed  of  horse,  foot,  and  artillery,  detached 
from  dilFerent  regiments  in  Belfast  and  Carrickfergus.  At  the  place 
of  execution  the  infantry  were  drawn  up  in  a  triangular  form  round 
the  gallows,  on  the  outside  of  which  the  cavalry  continued  to  move, 
whilst  at  some  little  distance  two  field  pieces  were  planted,  ranging 
with  the  roads  from  Carrickfei"gus  and  Belfast.  But  this  precaution 
was  unnecessary,  as  the  public  seemed  rather  to  shun  the  spectacle. 
A  few  of  his  particular  friends  having  asked  leave  to  come  within  the 
space  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  away  his  remains,  were  permitted  by 
the  sheriff.* 

He  distributed  various  printed  papers  containing  his  dying  decla- 
ration to  the  people  who  had  come  to  witness  the  consummation  of 
his  miu'der,  and  met  his  fate  with  calm  intrepidity.  It  was  afterwards 
said  of  his  conduct,  that  "  in  the  heathen  world  less  heroic  magna- 
nimity would  have  been  deified,  and  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity 
less  divinity  would  have  been  canonized."  When  the  rope  was  about 
his  neck,  he  appeared  for  a  moment  to  feel  indignant,  and  said  "  I  am 
no  traitor — I  am  persecuted  for  a  persecuted  country.  O  God 
receive  my  soul.     I  die  in  the  true  faith  of  a  Presbyterian." 

The  following  is  his  declaration  : — 

"TO  THE  PUBLIC. 
"  My  Friends  and  Countrymen — In  the  thirty-first  year  of  my 
life,  I  have  been  sentenced  to  die  upon  the  gallows,  and  this  sentence 
has  been  in  pursuance  of  a  verdict  of  twelve  men,  who  should  have 
been  indiffei'ently  and  impartially  chosen ;  how  far  they  have  been 
so,  I  leave  to  that  country  from  which  they  have  been  chosen,  to 
determine  ;  and  how  far  they  have  discharged  their  duty,  I  leave  to 
their  God  and  to  themselves.  They  have,  in  pronouncing  their 
verdict,  thought  proper  to  recommend  me  as  an  object  of  human 
mercy  ;  in  return,  I  pray  to  God,  as  they  have  erred,  to  have  mercy 
upon  them.  The  judge,  who  condemned  me,  humanely  shed  tears  in 
uttering  my  sentence,  but  whether  he  did  wisely  in  so  highly  com- 
mending the  wretched  informer,  who  swore  away  my  life,  I  leave  to 
his  own  cool  reflection,  solemnly  assuring  him  and  all  the  world,  with 
my  dying  breath,  that  that  informer  was  foresworn.  The  law  under 
which  I  suffer,  is  surely  a  severe  one  ;  may  the  makers  and  promoters 
of  it  be  justified  in  the  integrity  of  their  motives  and  the  purity  of 
their  own  lives !  By  that  law  I  am  stamped  a  felon,  but  my  heart 
disdains  the  imputation.     My  comfortable  lot  and  industrious  course 

*  Account  of  the  trial  of  William  Orr,  p.  33. 


i 


492  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE 

of  life  best  refvite  the  charge  of  being  an  adventurer  for  plunder ; 
but  if  to  have  loved  my  country,  to  have  known  its  wrongs,  to  have 
felt  the  injuries  of  the  persecuted  Catholics,  and  to  have  united  with 
them  and  all  other  religious  persuasions  in  the  most  orderly  and  least 
sanguinary  means  of  procuring  redress  :  If  those  be  felonies,  I  am 
a  felon,  but  not  otherwise.  Had  my  counsel  (for  whose  honourable 
exertions  I  am  indebted)  prevailed  in  their  motion  to  have  me  tried 
for  high  treason,  rather  than  under  the  Insurrection  Law,  I  should 
have  been  entitled  then  to  a  full  defence,  and  my  actions  then  would 
have  been  better  vindicated,  but  that  was  refused,  and  I  must  now 
submit  to  what  has  passed. 

*'  To  the  generous  protection  of  my  country,  I  leave  a  beloved  wife, 
who  has  been  constant  and  true  to  me,  and  whose  grief  for  my  fate 
has  already  nearly  occasioned  her  death.  I  leave  five  living  children, 
who  have  been  my  delight — may  they  love  their  country  as  I  have 
done,  and  die  for  it,  if  needful. 

"  Lastly,  a  false  and  ungenerous  publication  having  appeared  in  a 
newspaper,  stating  certain  alleged  confessions  of  guilt  on  my  part, 
and  thus  striking  at  my  reputation,  which  is  dearer  to  me  than  life,  I 
take  this  solemn  method  of  contradicting  that  calumny.  I  was  applied 
to  by  the  High  Sheriff  and  the  Rev.  William  Bristow,  sovereign  of 
Belfast,  to  make  a  confession  of  guilt,  who  used  entreaties  to  that 
effect ; — this  I  peremptorily  refused  ; — did  I  think  myself  guilty,  I 
should  be  free  to  confess  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  I  glory  in  my 
innocence. 

"  I  trust  that  all  my  virtuous  countrymen  will  bear  me  in  their  kind 

remembrance,  and  continue  true  and  faithful  to  each  other,  as  I  have 

been  to  all  of  them,  with  this  last  wish  of  my  heart,  nothing  doubting 

of  the  success  of  that  cause  for  which  I  suffer,  and  hoping  for  Grod's 

merciful  forgiveness  of  such  offences  as  my  frail  nature  may  have  at 

any  time  betrayed  me  into,    I  die  in  peace  and  charity  with  all 

mankind. 

William  Orr." 
"  Carrickfei'gus  Gaol, 

«  Oct.  5th,  1797. 

N.B. — The  above  declaration  was  made  and  read  by  William  Orr, 
in  the  presence  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Savage. 

Some  gross  mis-statements  having  appeared  under  the  name  of 
C.  Skiffington,  in  the  Belfast  Neivs  Letter,  the  brother  of  the  mur- 
dered Orr  had  the  following  declaration  published,  which  gives  the 
latter  further  claims  to  the  grateful  memory  of  his  countrymen,  and 
adds  fresh  infamy  to  the  government  and  its  provincial  agents : — 


TRIAL   OF  FINERTY.  493 

"TO    THE    PUBLIC. 

"  In  consequence  of  seeing  a  paragraph  in  the  Belfast  Neics  Letter, 
signed  C.  Skiffington,  Esq.,  High  Sheriff  of  this  county,  and  the 
Reverned  William  Bristow,  Sovereign  of  Belfast,  relative  to  the 
declaration  of  my  unfortunate  brother,  I  am  therefore  induced,  through 
justice  to  the  character  of  my  brother  and  myself,  to  lay  the  whole  of 
that  transaction  before  the  public.  A  few  days  after  my  brother 
was  found  guilty  and  sentenced  to  die,  I  went  to  Belfast  and  applied 
to  many  gentlmen  for  the  purpose  of  using  their  interest  to  have  the 
punishment  of  my  brother  mitigated,  and  in  presence  of  Mr.  James 
Dickey  of  Randlestown,  and  Mr.  Thomas  L.  Stewart  of  Belfast,  I 
applied  to  Mr.  Staples,  a  member  of  parliament  for  this  county,  and 
the  Honorable  William  John  Skiffington,  for  the  above  purpose,  who 
proposed,  if  I  would  get  a  written  confession  of  guilt  from  my  brother, 
that  they  would  sign  a  memorial  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  his 
pardon  ;  and  the  Honorable  William  John  Skiffington  said,  he  would 
go  round  the  gentlemen  of  the  grand  jury  (who  were  then  mostly  all 
in  Belfast)  and  get  the  memorial  signed  by  them.  In  consequence  of 
which,  I  got  a  written  confession  prepared  before  I  left  Belfast,  and 
produced  it  to  the  Hon.,  William  John  Skiffington,  and  asked  him  if 
it  was  full  enough  ?  To  which  he  agreed.  I  accordingly  went  to 
Carrickfergus  and  applied  to  my  brother  to  sign  the  confession,  which 
I  produced  to  him,  telling  him,  if  he  would  sign  it,  the  above  gentle- 
men would  sign  a  memorial  to  obtain  him  his  pardon,  and  get  the 
rest  of  the  grand  jury  to  do  so.  On  his  reading  over  the  written 
confession,  he  declared,  he  never  would  consent  to  sign  a  paper 
acknowledging  his  guilt  and  the  justice  of  his  sentence,  as  he  declared 
he  was  not  guilty  of  the  crime  he  was  charged  with.  Not  being  able 
to  induce  him  to  consent  to  the  above,  I  left  him,  and  conceiving  it 
would  be  of  very  material  use,  and  be  the  means  of  saving  his  life, 
for  this  purpose,  and  through  that  view,  I  prepared  and  signed 
in  his  name  the  confession  of  guilt,  entirely  without  the  privity  or 
consent  of  my  brother,  and  immediately  returned  to  Belfast,  and 
delivered  it  to  the  Hon.  William  John  Skiffington,  as  the  act  of  my 
brother,  with  which,  I  believe,  he  went  round  the  above  gentlemen 
in  order  to  obtain  their  signatures  to  the  memorial,  which  they 
refused.  This  was  the  whole  transaction,  being  entirely  my  act,  and 
not  that  of  my  brother,  as  he  utterly  refused  it.     And  this  I  am 

ready  to  verify  upon  oath." 

"  James  Orr." 

Such  was  the  fate  of  Orr,  and  such  the  desperate  wickedness  of 
government.     His  blood  freshened  the  seeds  of  revolt  deeply  sown 


494  INTRODUCTION  TO    THE 

in  the  people's  heart.  His  name  was  on  the  pikes  in  the  rebellion 
which  soon  followed,  and  the  celebrated  proclamation  of  John  Sheares 
terminated  with  the  emphatic  words  "  Remember  Orr." 

The  consummation  of  this  ti'agedy  was  received  with  indignant 
fury  by  the  people.  The  most  beautiful  and  pathetic  verses  were 
poured  from  the  pi-ess  ;  and  the  fate  of  Orr  was  mourned  for  even  in 
the  capital  of  England,  where  Mr.  Fox,  at  a  public  dinner,  gave  the 
memory  of  the  martyr,  and  where  another  speaker  proposed  as  a  senti- 
ment "  that  the  Irish  Cabinet  may  soon  take  the  place  of  William  Orr." 

But  the  most  powerful  invective  on  his  fate  appeared  in  the  Press 
newspaper,  a  journal  distinguished  for  its  ability  and  literary  merit,  in 
the  shape  of  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Lord  Camden,  the  cold  and 
crafty  tyrant  who,  as  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  the  day,  may  be  said  to 
have  presided  at  the  sacrifice  of  William  Orr.  For  the  publication  of 
this  invective,  a  criminal  information  was  filed  against  Mr.  Peter 
Finerty,  the  printer  of  the  Press.  The  speech  of  Curran  is  one  of 
matchless  beauty  and  tenderness ;  but  the  days  were  rapidly  approach- 
ing when  the  jury-box  ceased  to  afford  a  protection  to  the  subject ; 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  libel  was  rejected  by  the  court,  and  the 
printer  was  found  guilty. 

This  very  celebrated  libel  was  written  by  Mr.  Deane  Swift,  who, 
under  the  signature  of  "  Marcus,"  furnished  the  Press  with  some  of 
its  most  able  and  most  violent  articles.  He  was  son  of  Theophilus 
Swift,  a  barrister  of  eccentric  habits,  who  was  distinguished  by  his 
duel  with  the  Duke  of  Richmond,  and  who  had  been  imprisoned  for 
a  libel  on  the  fellows  of  Trinity  College.*  The  letter  is  throughout 
one  of  considerable  ability  ;  and  it  will  be  found  set  out  in  full  in  the 
trial  of  Finerty.     The  closing  passage  is  as  follows  : — 

"  We  are  not  Domitian's  people  ;  we  are  not  lopped  at  a  blow ;  but  it 
looks  as  if  some  fate  had  doomed  us  to  be  destroyed  one  by  one,  as  the 
Persian  tyrant  ordered  the  hairs  to  be  plucked  from  the  tail  of  his  beast. 
Beasts  we  have  been,  the  vile  carriers  of  the  vilest  burdens  that  the 
vilest  masters  could  lay  upon  us.  But  the  yoke  is  shaken — persecution 
has  provoked  to  love,  and  united  Ireland  against  foreign  despotism. 

"  Feasting  in  your  Castle,  in  the  midst  of  your  myrmidons  and 
bishops,  you  have  little  concerned  yourself  about  the  expelled  and 
miserable  cottager,  whose  dwelling,  at  the  moment  of  your  mirth  was, 
in  flames  ;  his  wife  and  his  daughter  then  under  the  violation  of  some 
commissioned  ravager ;  his  son  agonizing  on  the  bayonet,  and  his 
helpless  infants  crying  in  vain  for  mercy.  These  are  lamentations 
that  stain  not  the  hour  of  carousal.     Under  intoxicated  counsels  the 

*  Madden's  United  Irishmen,  2  vol.,  2  series,  p.  39. 


TRIAL  or  FINERTY.  495 

constitution  has  reeled  to  its  centre — -justice  herself  is  not  only 
blind  drunk,  but  deaf,  like  Festus,  to  '  the  words  of  soberness  and 
truth.' 

"  My  lord,  the  people  of  Ireland  did  hope  that  mercy  would  not 
have  been  denied  to  a  most  woi-thy  and  innocent  man,  when  they 
understood,  that  one  of  the  worst  advisers  and  most  imperious  mem- 
bers of  your  cabinet  had  abandoned  the  kingdom.  Had  he  been  of 
your  late  counsels,  the  odium  might  have  been  divided ;  at  present 
you  have  the  best  claim  to  it.  Let,  however,  the  awful  execution  of 
Mr.  Orr  be  a  lesson  to  all  unthinking  juries  ;  and  let  them  cease  to 
flatter  themselves  that  the  soberest  recommendation  of  theirs,  and  of 
the  presiding  judge,  can  stop  the  course  of  carnage  which  sanguinary, 
and,  I  do  not  fear  to  say,  unconstitutional  laws  have  ordered  to  be 
loosed — let  them  remember  that,  like  Macbeth,  the  servants  of  the 
crown  have  waded  so  far  in  blood,  that  they  find  it  easier  to  go  on 
than  to  go  back. 

"  I  am,  my  lord, 
'*  Your  Excellency's  humble  servant, 

"  Marcus." 

For  this  libel  ]Mr.  Peter  Finerty,  the  printer  of  the  Press,  was  tried, 
and  on  his  trial  found  guilty.  Fletcher  and  Curi'an  were  his  counsel, 
but  it  was  beyond  the  ability  of  either  to  affect  the  corrupt  and  packed 
juries  of  the  day.  The  trial  by  jury  has  been  no  blessing  in  Ireland ; 
the  government  has  rarely  hesitated  to  throw  its  weight  into  the  scale 
against  the  fair  administration  of  justice ;  and  a  system  which  ought 
to  be  not  alone  pure  but  unsuspected,  has  been  rendered,  through  the 
agency  of  corrupt  sheriffs,  by  terrorism  and  other  unrighteous  means, 
an  instrument  of  oppression,  as  effective  as  any  ever  adopted  in  the 
worst  judicatures  in  Europe.  When  we  consider  the  class  of  jurors 
which  filled  the  box  during  the  eventful  years  in  which  these  trials 
took  place — the  class  of  witnesses  who  paraded  their  blasted  characters 
and  recorded  infamy  upon  the  table,  and  the  kind  of  men  who 
degraded  the  seat  of  justice,  we  are  not  astonished  at  the  scenes  of 
cruelty,  the  invariable  verdict,  and  the  prompt  and  bitter  sentence 
which  each  trial  discloses.  Prerogative  judges  have  from  time  to 
time  poisoned  the  sources  of  justice  in  Ireland,  and  probably  they 
have  been  the  most  efficient  means  of  preserving  and  perpetuating 
the  animosity  with  which  Irishmen  regard  British  influence  in  this 
country.  For  all  the  constantly  recurring  judicial  bi-eaches  of  inte- 
grity were  prompted  by  corrupt  hope  ;  the  profligate  and  partial  judge 
looked  to  the  British  cabinet  as  the  liberal  purchaser  of  his  infamy, 
and  was  ready  to  work  out  its  objects  by  the  saci'ifice  of  his  functions 


496  INTRODUCTION   TO    THE 

and  the  breach  of  his  oath ; — and  the  reward  was  comznensurate 
with  the  service.  The  modern  politician  in  Ireland  has  good  reason 
to  pray  that  the  race  may  have  passed  away  for  ever,  and  that  the 
liberty  which  the  British  constitution  is  said  to  give,  and  of  which 
it  is  supposed  to  guarantee  the  possession,  may  not  be  the  spoit  of  ; 
furious  bigots  on  the  bench,  or  partial  jurors  in  the  juiy-box. 

After  the  destruction  of  the  Northern  Star,  a  celebrated  organ  of 
the  United  Irishmen  of  Ulster,  which  had  been  started  in  Belfast 
by  Samuel  Neilson,  which,  from  1792  to  1797,  was  conducted  with 
considerable  ability  and  zeal,  the  still  more  celebrated  newspaper 
the  Press,  was  established  by  Arthur  O'Connor. 

The  Press  appeared  for  the  first  time  on  the  4th  of  October,  1797, 
and  after  a  brief  and  stormy  existence,  was  suppressed  like  its  prede- 
cessor the  Northern  Star,  by  military  violence,  on  the  6th  of  March, 
1798.  It  was  published  at  62,  Abbey-street,  Dublin.*  Its  proprietor 
was  Arthur  O'Connor,  its  nominal  printer  was  Peter  Finerty,  and 
Stockdale  was  its  nominal  publisher.  The  editorial  department  was, 
however,  conducted  by  Finerty.  Arthur  O'Connor,  in  a  letter  pub- 
lished in  the  Press,  2d  January,  1798,  says:  "I  did  set  up  the 
Press,  though  in  a  legal  sense  I  was  not  its  proprietor  ;  nor  did  I 
look  to  any  remuneration ;  and  I  did  so,  because  from  the  time  that 
in  violation  of  property  in  subversion  of  even  the  appearance  of 
respect  for  the  laws,  and  to  destroy  not  only  the  freedom  of  the  Press 
but  the  Press  itself,  the  present  members  destroyed  the  Northern 
Star,  no  paper  in  Ireland  (either  from  the  papers  being  bought  up, 
or  from  the  dread  and  horror  of  being  destroyed)  would  publish  an 
accoimt  of  the  enormities  these  very  ministers  were  committing." 

Several  men  of  great  ability  were  connected  with  the  Press.  Dr. 
Drennan,  Mr.  Deane  Swift,  Thomas  Addis  Emmet,  Sampson,  and 
John  Sheares  amongst  the  rest.     Moore  was  also  a  contributor. 

The  government  having  determined  to  destroy  the  paper,  and  having, 
moreover,  received  intimation  that  a  violent  letter  against  Lord  Clare 
was  about  to  be  published,  the  High  Sheriff,  accompanied  by  a  military 
force,  took  possession  of  a  house  in  Mountrath-street,  where  the 
Press  was  printed,  and  also  of  the  house  in  Abbey-street  where  it 
was  published.  The  letter  which  brought  down  the  immediate  ven- 
geance of  Lord  Clare  was  signed  "  Dion,"  and  written,  as  Dr.  Madden 
says,  by  John  Sheares.  It  is  a  furious  phillippic,  and  might  have 
excited  rage  in  a  more  moderate  and  more  constitutional  government 
than  the  Irish  rulers  of  the  period.  Its  threatened  publication  ter- 
minated the  existence  of  the  Press. 

*  Madden's  United  Irishmen,  2  vol.,  1  series,  37. 


TRIAL 


OF 


MR.    PETER    FINERTY, 

LATE  [PRINTER  OF  "THE  PKRSS," 

FOR  A  LIBEL. 


COMMISSION 

OF    OYER    AND    TERMINER    AND    GENERAL  GAOL   DELIVERY, 

HELD    IN    AND    FOR    THE    COUNTY    OF   THE   CITY   OF 

DUBLIN  BEFORE  THE  HON.  JUSTICE  DOWNES. 


Friday,  22c1  December,  1797- 

Mr.  Peter  Finerty  being  put  to  the  bar,  the  pannel  of  the  petty  jury 
was  called — there  appeared  above  one  hundred  and  forty  names  on  it. 
The  folloAving  jury  was  then  sworn,  after  the  crown  had  set  aside 
Mr.  Henry  Lyons  and  Mr.  George  »Saul ;  and  Messrs.  Robert  Law, 
John  Conroy,  and  John  Ferange  had  objected  to  themselves,  as  having 
been  on  the  grand  jury  that  found  the  bill  against  Mr.  Finerty  : 

James  Blacker,  James  Atkinson, 

Ben.  Richardson,  William  Cowan, 

John  Dickinson,  Bladen  Sweeny, 

Wm.  Dickinson,  Mark  Bloxam, 

Wm.  Taylor,  Wm.  Williams, 

Michael  Nixon,  James  King. 

The  Clerk  of  the  Crown  then  gave  Mr.  Finerty  in  charge  to  the 
jury  upon  an  indictment  stating — "That  at  a  general  assizes  and  gene- 
ral gaol  delivery,  holden  at  Carrickfergus,  in  and  for  the  county  of 
Antrim,  on  l7th  April,  37  King,  before  the  Hon.  Mathias  Finucane, 
one  of  the  judges  of  his  majesty's  Court  of  Common  Pleas  in  Ireland, 
and  the  Hon.  Denis  George,  one  of  the  barons  of  his  majesty's  Court  of 
Exchequer,  in  L-eland,  justices  and  commissioners  assigned  to  deliver 
the  gaol  of  our  said  lord  the  king,  in  and  for  the  county  of  Antrim, 
of  the  several  prisoners  and  malefactors  therein,  one  William  Orr, 
late  of  Farranshane,  in  said  county  Antrim,  yeoman,  was  in  lawful 
manner  indicted  for  feloniously  administering  a  certain  oath  and 
engagement  upon  a  book  to  one  Hugh  Wheatly ;  which  oath  and 
engagement  imported  to  bind  the  said  Hugh  Wheatly,  who  then 
and  there  took  the  same,  to  be  of  an  association,  bi-otherhood,  and 

2   K 


498  TRIAL   OF 

society,  formed  for  seditious  purposes ;  and  also  for  feloniously  caus- 
ing, procuring,  and  inducing  said  Hugh  Wheatly  to  take   an  oath  of 
import  last  mentioned  ;  and  also  for  feloniously  administering  to  said 
Hugh  Wheatly  another  oath,  importing  to  bind  said  Hugh  Wheatly 
not  to  inform  or  give  evidence  against  any  brother,  associate,  or  con- 
federate  of  a  certain   society  then  and  there  formed  ;  and  also  for 
feloniously  causing,  procuring,  and  seducing  said  Hugh  Wheatly  to 
take  an  oath  of  said  import  last  mentioned.     And  afterwards  at  Car- 
rickfergus  aforesaid,  before  the  Right  Hon.  Barry  Lord  Yelverton, 
Lord  Chief-Baron  of  his  Majesty's  Court  of  Exchequer  in  Ireland, 
and  the  Hon.  Tankerville  Chamberlaine,  one  of  his  Majesty's  Justices 
of  his  Court  of  Chief  Place  in  Ireland,  at  a  general  assizes,  &c.,  holden 
at  Carrickfergus  aforesaid,  in  county  Antrim  aforesaid.  Justices  and 
Commissioners  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  assigned  to  take  all  the 
assizes,  juries,  recognitions,  and  certificates,  before  whatsoever  justices 
held  or  taken ;  and  also  assigned  to  hear,  examine,  discuss,  and  deter- 
mine of  all  and  singular  treasons,  murders,  manslaughters,  burnings, 
unlawful  assemblies,  felonies,  robberies,  extortions,  oppressions,  trans- 
gressions, crimes,  contempts,  offences,  evil  doings,  and  causes  whatso- 
ever committed  within  the  said  county  of  Antrim  ;  and  to  deliver  the 
gaol  of  our  said  Lord  the  King,  in  and  for  the  said  county  of  Antrim. 
On  the  16th  day  of  September,  in  the  37th  King,  said  William  Orr, 
by  the  verdict  of  a  certain  jury  of  said  county  of  Antrim,  between 
our  said  Lord  the  King  and  said  William  Orr,  taken  of  and  for  the 
felony  aforesaid  in  due  manner,  was  tried,  convicted,   and  attainted, 
and  for  the  same  was  duly  executed ;  and  that  lie,  Avell  knowing  the 
premises,  but  being  a  wicked  and  ill-disposed  person,  and  of  unquiet 
conversation  and  disposition,  and  devising,  and  intending  to  molest 
and  disturb  the  peace  and  public  tranquillity  of  this  kingdom  of  Ire- 
land ;  and  to  bring  and  draw  the  trial  aforesaid,  and  the  verdict  there- 
on, for  our  said  Lord  the  King,  against  this  William  Orr  given,  and 
the  due  course  of  law  in  that  behalf  had,  as  aforesaid,  into  hatred, 
contempt,  and  scandal  with  all  the  liege  subjects  of  our  said  Lord  the 
King ;  and  to  persuade,  and  cause  the  subjects  of  our  said  Lord  the 
King  to  believe,  that  the  ti'ial  aforesaid  was  unduly  had,  and  that  the 
said   William   Orr   did  undeservedly  die  in  manner  aforesaid  ;  and 
that  his    Excellency  John    Jeffreys,  Earl  Camden,  the  Lord  Lieu- 
tenant of  this  kingdom,  after  the  conviction  aforesaid,  ought  to  have 
extended  to  the  said  William  Orr  his  Majesty's  gracious  pardon  of 
the  felonies  aforesaid  ;  and  that  in  not  so  extending  such  pardon,  the 
said  Lord  Lieutenant  had  acted  inhumanly,  wickedly,  and  unjustly, 
and  in  a  manner  unworthy  of  the  trust  which  had  been  committed  to 
him  by  our  said  Lord  the  King  in  that  behalf;  and  that  the  said 
Lord    Lieutenant  in    his    government  of   this  kingdom,   had   acted 
unjustly,  cruelly,  and  oppressively  to  his  Majesty's  subjects  therein. 
And  to  fulfil  and  bring  to  effect  his  most  wicked  and  detestable 
devices  and  intentions  aforesaid,  on  26th  October,  37th  of  the  King,  at 
Mountrath-street  aforesaid,  city  of  Dublin  aforesaid,  falsely,  wickedly, 
maliciously,  and  seditiously,  did  print  and  publish,  and  cause   and 
procure  to  be  printed  and  published,  in  a  certain  newspaper  entitled 
the  Press,  a  certain  false,  wicked,  malicious,  and  seditious  libel,  of 
and  concerning  the  said  trial,  conviction,  attainder,  and  execution  of 


PETER   FINERTY.  499 

the  said  William  Orr,  as  aforesaid,  and  of  arid  concerning  the  said 
Lord  Lieutenant  and  his  government  of  this  kingdom,  and  his 
Majesty's  Ministers  employed  by  him  in  his  government  of  this 
kingdom,  according  to  the  tenor  and  effect  following,  to  wit : — "  The 
death  of  Mr.  Orr  (meaning  the  said  execution  of  the  said  William 
Orr)  the  nation  has  pronounced  one  of  the  most  sanguinaiy  and 
savage  acts  that  had  disgraced  the  laws.  In  perjury,  did  you  not 
hear,  my  lord,  (meaning  the  said  Lord  Lieutenant,)  the  verdict 
(meaning  the  verdict  aforesaid)  was  given  ?  Perjury  accompanied 
with  terror,  as  terror  has  marked  every  step  of  your  government 
(meaning  the  government  of  this  kingdom  aforesaid  by  the  said  Lord 
Lieutenant).  Vengeance  and  desolation  were  to  foil  on  those  who 
M^ould  not  plunge  themselves  in  blood.  These  were  not  strong 
enough.  Against  the  express  law  of  the  land,  not  only  was  drink 
introduced  to  the  jury  (meaning  the  jury  aforesaid),  but  drunkenness 
itself,  beastly  and  criminal  drunkenness,  was  employed  to  procure  the 
mui'der  of  a  better  man  (meaning  the  said  execution  of  the  said 
William  Orr)  than  any  that  now  surrounds  you  (meaning  the  said 
Lord  Lieutenant)."  And  in  another  part  thereof,  according  to  the 
tenor  and  effect  following,  to  wit : — "  Eepentance,  which  is  a  slow 
virtue,  hastened  however  to  declare  the  innocence  of  the  victim 
(meaning  the  said  William  Orr) ;  the  mischief  (meaning  the  said  con- 
viction of  the  said  William  Orr)  which  perjury  had  done,  truth  now 
stepped  forward  to  repair.  Neither  was  she  too  late,  had  humanity 
formed  any  part  of  your  counsels  (meaning  the  counsels  of  the  said 
Lord  Lieutenant).  Stung  with  remorse,  on  the  return  of  reason, 
part  of  his  jury  (meaning  the  jury  aforesaid)  solemnly  and  soberly 
made  oath,  that  their  verdict  (meaning  the  verdict  aforesaid)  had  been 
given  under  the  unhappy  influence  of  intimidation  and  drink  ;  and  in 
the  most  serious  affidavit  that  ever  was  made,  by  acknowledging  their 
crime,  endeavoured  to  atone  to  God  and  to  their  country  for  the  sin 
into  which  they  had  been  seduced."  And  in  another  part  thereof, 
according  to  the  tenor  and  effect  following,  to  wit : — "  And  though 
the  innocence  of  the  accused  (meaning  the  said  William  Orr)  had 
even  remained  doubtful,  it  was  your  duty  (meaning  the  duty  of  the 
said  Lord  Lieutenant),  my  lord,  and  you  (meaning  the  said  Lord 
Lieutenant)  had  no  exemption  from  that  duty,  to  have  interposed 
your  arm,  and  saved  him  (meaning  the  said  WiUiam  Orr)  from  the 
death  (meaning  the  execution  aforesaid)  that  perjury,  drunkenness, 
and  reward  had  prepared  for  him  (meaning  the  said  William  Orr). 
Let  not  the  nation  be  told  that  you  (meaning  the  said  Lord  Lieute- 
nant) are  a  passive  instrument  in  the  hands  of  others  ;  if  passive  you 
be,  then  is  your  office  a  shadow  indeed.  If  an  active  instrument,  as 
you  ought  to  be,  you  (meaning  the  said  Lord  Lieutenant)  did  not 
perform  the  duty  which  the  laws  required  of  you ;  you  (meaning  the 
said  Lord  Lieutenant)  did  not  exercise  the  prerogative  of  mercy — 
that  mercy  which  the  constitution  had  entrusted  to  you  (meaning  the 
said  Lord  Lieutenant)  for  the  safety  of  the  subject,  by  guarding  him 
from  the  oppression  of  wicked  men.  Innocent  it  appears  he  (meaning 
the  said  William  Orr)  was,  his  blood  (meaning  the  blood  of  the 
said  William  Orr)  has  been  shed,  and  the  precedent  indeed  is 
awfiil."     And  in   auotl^er  part  thereof,   according   to  the  tenor  and 


500  TRIAL    OF 

effect  following,  to  wit : — "  But  suppose  the  evidence  of  Wheatly  had 
been  true,  what  was  the  offence  of  Mr.  Orr  (meaning  the  said 
William  Orr)  ?  Not  that  he  had  taken  an  oath  of  blood  and  exter- 
mination— for  then  he  had  not  suffered ;  but  that  he  (meaning  the 
said  William  Orr)  had  taken  an  oath  of  charity  and  of  union,  of 
humanity  and  of  peace,  he  (meaning  the  said  William  Orr)  has 
suffered.  Shall  we  then  be  told  that  your  government  (meaning  the 
government  of  this  kingdom  aforesaid  by  the  said  Lord  Lieutenant) 
will  conciliate  public  opinion,  or  that  the  people  will  not  continue  to 
look  for  a  better."  And  in  another  part  thereof,  according  to  the 
tenor  and  effect  following,  that  is  to  say — "  Is  it  to  be  wondered  that 
a  successor  of  Lord  Fitzwilliam  should  sign  the  death-wai'rant  of 
Mr.  Orr  (meaning  the  said  William  Orr).  Mr.  Pitt  had  learned 
that  a  merciful  Lord  Lieutenant  was  unsuited  to  a  government  of 
violence.  It  was  no  compliment  to  the  native  clemency  of  a  Camden 
that  he  sent  you  (meaning  the  said  Lord  Lieutenant)  into  Ireland — 
and  what  has  been  our  poi'tion  under  the  change,  but  massacre  and 
rape,  military  murders,  desolation,  and  terror."  And  in  another  part 
thereof,  according  to  the  tenor  and  effect  here  following,  that  is  to 
say — "  Feasting  in  your  castle,  in  the  midst  of  your  myrmidons 
and  bishops,  you  (meaning  the  said  Lord  Lieutenant)  have  little 
concerned  yourself  about  the  expelled  and  miserable  cottager,  whose 
dwelling  at  the  moment  of  your  mirth  was  in  flames,  his  wife  and  his 
daughter  then  under  the  violation  of  some  commissioned  ravager,  his 
son  agonizing  on  the  bayonet,  and  his  helpless  infants  crying  in  vain 
for  mercy.  These  are  lamentations  that  stain  not  the  house  of 
carousal.  Under  intoxicated  counsels  (meaning  the  counsels  of  the 
said  Lord  Lieutenant)  the  constitution  has  reeled  to  its  centre;  justice 
herself  is  not  only  blind  drunk  but  deaf,  like  Festus,  to  the  words  of 
soberness  and  truth."  And  in  another  part  thereof,  according  to  the 
tenor  and  effect  here  following,  to  wit : — "  Let,  however,  the  awful 
execution  of  Mr.  Orr  (meaning  the  execixtion  aforesaid  of  the  said 
William  Orr)  be  a  lesson  to  all  unthinking  juries,  and  let  them  cease 
to  flatter  themselves  that  the  soberest  recommendation  of  theirs,  and 
of  the  presiding  judge,  can  stop  the  course  of  carnage  which  sangui- 
nary, and  I  do  not  fear  to  say,  unconstitutional  laws  have  ordered  to 
be  loosed.  Let  them  remember  that,  like  Macbeth,  the  servants  of 
the  crown  have  waded  so  far  in  blood  that  they  find  it  easier  to  go  on 
than  to  go  back,  in  contempt,  &c.,  and  against  peace." 

There  were  other  counts  charging  the  publication  in  different  ways. 

Mr.  TowNSEND  opened  the  indictment  on  the  part  of  the  prose- 
cution, and  in  an  unusual  manner,  never  before  done,  stated  to  the 
juiy  the  whole   of  the  publication  as  charged  against  Mr.  Finerty. 

Mr.  Attorney-General,  stated  the  case.  He  said  he  had  been 
directed  by  the  executive  power  to  prosecute  the  traverser  at  the 
bar  for  printing  and  publishing,  and  causing  to  be  printed  and  pub- 
lished, a  false,  scandalous,  malicious,  and  seditious  libel.  The  grand 
jury  of  the  city  of  Dublin  had  found  the  bill  of  indictment,  and  to 
that  bill  the  traverser  has  pleaded  not  guilty ;  and  it  is  your  duty, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  upon  the  evidence  that  shall  be  laid  before 
you  this  day,  and  the  evidence  arising  from  the  libel  itself,  taking  the 
whole  together  to  determine  two  questions :  one,  a  question  of  fact. 


PETER   FINERTY.  501 

whether  the  traverser  at  the  bar  be  guilty  of  publishing  that  paper 
called  a  malicious  and  seditious  libel ;  and  the  second  question, 
gentlemen,  which  you  have  to  decide  is,  whether  the  libellous  paper 
itself  be  a  seditious  libel  or  not.  That,  gentlemen,  you  will  consider 
upon  a  careful  perusal  and  examination  of  the  paper ;  but  previous 
to  that  examination  you  are  to  hear  from  the  learned  judge  who 
presides  in  this  court,  his  opinion  upon  this  paper  whether  it  be  a  libel 
or  not.  And,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  must  beg  leave  to  say,  that  no 
jury,  at  least  in  modern  times,  have  ever  been  assembled  upon  an 
occasion  of  more  importance  to  the  government  of  the  country,  than 
that  which  now  is  before  you  for  your  consideration.  Gentlemen,  I 
am  now  speaking  generally ;  I  shall  afterwards  go  to  particulars.  It 
is  a  libel  upon  the  administration  of  the  justice  of  the  country — a 
libel  that  renders  the  judges  in  the  administration  of  justice  con- 
temptible and  odious  in  the  eyes  of  the  people — a  libel  having  such  a 
tendency  is  the  greatest  danger  that  can  be  brought  on  a  state :  the 
necessary  consequences  which  were  intended  to  be  produced,  and  for 
which  this  libel  has  been  published — a  purpose  that  must  tend  to  the 
total  destruction  of  government  and  social  order  in  the  state.  When 
respect  for  the  administration  of  justice  in  a  country  is  gone,  every 
thing  is  lost — our  lives,  our  properties  are  in  danger.  The  traverser 
at  the  bar  is  charged  with  having,  on  the  26th  of  October  last,  printed 
and  published,  in  the  city  of  Dublin,  a  newspaper,  entitled  the  Press. 
It  would  little  become  me,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to  state  to  you  facts 
not  immediately  pertaining  to  the  case  before  you  ;  still  less  if  I  was 
capable  of  stating  anything  to  you  in  a  case  of  such  vast  magnitude 
as  could  affect  your  passions.  However,  something  prefatory  I  must 
say  of  this  paper,  of  which  it  will  appear  that  the  man  at  the  bar  is 
the  sole  proprietor  and  printer. 

The  paper,  gentlemen,  was  published  for  the  first  time  on  the  1 7th 
of  September  in  the  present  year.  The  law  makes  it  necessary  in 
order  to  preserve  the  freedom  of  the  press,  to  preserve  it  by  restrain- 
ing its  licentiousness  ;  the  law  has  made  it  necessary,  that  the  man 
who  publishes  a  newspaper  shall  make  an  affidavit  that  he  is  the  sole 
publisher  of  that  paper  and  no  other  ;  and  of  every  day's  publication 
a  copy  shall  be  delivered  at  the  Stamp-office,  signed  by  him  who  is 
the  proprietor,  and  by  that  means  leaves  him  responsible  to  any  person 
whom  he  shall  publish  against. 

On  the  17th  of  September  the  traverser  made  an  affidavit  pursu- 
ant to  the  statute,  by  which  he  swore  that  he  was  the  sole  proprietor 
and  publisher  of  that  newspaper  called  the  Press,  and  the  law 
requires  that  the  man  who  shall  so  publish  such  paper,  whenever  any 
alteration  shall  be  made  in  the  property  and  right  of  publication,  a 
new  affidavit  of  that  fact  shall  be  made.  I  have  stated  that  on  the 
17th  of  September  the  traverser  made  an  affidavit  stating  that  he 
was  the  sole  proprietor  and  publisher  of  that  paper,  and  from  that 
day  to  the  present  no  other  affidavit  has  been  made ;  and  therefore, 
gentlemen,  by  the  affidavit  already  made  by  the  traverser  at  the  bar, 
Peter  Finerty  appears  to  be  the  sole  proprietor  and  printer  of  that 
paper  called  the  Press. 

Gentlemen,  this  paper  appears  to  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  draw 
upon  it  the  attention  of  a  government  deserving   any  respect,  and  of 


502  TRIAL    OF  M 

every  man  in  the  state  who  had  any  regard  to  his  life,  liberty,  or 
property,  and  the  happy  constitution  under  which  he  is  governed.  I 
will  not  go  into  the  general  systematic  tendency  of  the  paper.  I  will 
make  an  observation  or  two  on  it,  merely  as  to  the  head  of  the  prose- 
cution now  under  your  consideration.  No  man  who  has  read  that 
paper,  that  shall  deliberate  on  the  series  of  papers  that  have  been 
published  in  the  Press,  but  must  say  it  was  calculated  to  run  down 
the  administration  of  justice  in  this  country — a  systematic  determina- 
tion to  disgi'ace  the  justice  of  the  country  in  the  eyes  of  the  people ; 
to  make  the  lower  orders  of  the  people,  who  are  ever  and  anon  clamo- 
rous, to  rise  against  the  state,  and  to  make  them  believe  that  justice 
and  law  are  curbed  in  the  administration  of  them,  and  that  they  can- 
not have  impartial  justice  done  to  them. 

I  am  at  liberty  to  say  it  does  disclose  such  a  system,  and  the  part 
you  are  called  on  to  determine  is  only  a  part  of  that  system.  I  will 
presently  state  the  different  parts  of  the  libel,  but,  before  I  do  it,  let 
me  observe  to  you,  that  in  the  discharge  of  that  sacred  trust  which  is 
now  reposed  in  you,  you  are  to  defend  the  liberty  of  the  press.  You 
will  defend  that  liberty  which  will  preserve  the  freedom  of  life  and 
of  property.  It  is  the  abuse  of  the  freedom  of  the  press  that  calls  on 
you  to  defend  its  liberty.  The  liberty  of  the  press,  gentlemen,  can 
never  be  destroyed,  but  by  its  licentiousness. 

The  indictment  in  this  case  does  state  some  matters  of  fact,  which,, 
the  better  to  enable  you  to  understand,  I  will  i-ead  to  you. 

Mr.  Attorney-General  then  read  the  opening  of  the  indictment, 
where  it  is  stated,  <'  that  at  a  general  gaol  delivery,  held  at  Carrick- 
fergus,  on  the  l7th  April,"  &c.  He  then  observed  to  the  jury — This 
part  of  the  indictment,  gentlemen,  is  worth  attending  to,  because  it 
will  show  that  there  was  a  perversion  of  truth  in  order  to  deceive  the 
people.  The  indictment  then  goes  on  and  states  that  Peter  Finerty 
had,  as  a  further  object  to  deceive  the  people  by  this  seditious  libel, 
wished  to  insinuate  that  William  Orr  ought  not  to  have  been  convicted, 
and  that  he  ought  to  have  received  his  Majesty's  pardon,  and  further 
to  cause  it  to  be  believed,  that  the  Lord  Lieutenant  had  acted  inhu- 
manly, unjustly,  and  unworthily  the  situation  he  holds,  in  not  having 
extended  to  Orr  his  Majesty's  royal  clemency.  And  then,  gentlemen, 
the  indictment  goes  on,  and  states  those  parts  of  the  libel  which  are 
particularly  relied  on,  and  you  will  have,  after  the  evidence  is  given, 
an  opportunity  of  viewing  the  whole  libel.  The  indictment  states 
particular  parts ;  but  in  the  consideration  of  the  question,  it  will  be 
your  duty  to  compare  it,  and  see  if  the  whole  of  the  publication  has 
for  its  object  that  which  the  indictment  charges  it  to  be. 

The  paper  was  published  on  the  26th  October,  1797,  of  and  con- 
cerning the  trial,  attaint,  and  execution  of  William  Orr,  and  of  and 
concerning  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and  ministers  employed  by  the  King 
in  the  government  of  this  kingdom.  I  forbear  to  state  any  of  those 
circumstances  that  attended  the  trial  of  Mr.  Orr,  because  I  do  not 
conceive  them  to  be  at  all  necessary  to  be  shown  in  the  present  ques- 
tion. You  will  see,  gentlemen,  from  the  libel  itself,  with  what  view 
the  publication  was  made ;  and  it  is  not  for  me  to  state  what  passed 
on  the  trial  of  that  unfortunate  man,  whose  name  I  would  not  mention, 
if  it  was  not  made  necessary  from  the  nature  of  the  case. 


PETER   FINERTY.  503 

Gentlemen,  the  libel  imports  to  be  a  letter  writen  to  the  Lord 
Lieutenant  soon  after  the  execution  of  Mr.  Orr. 

Mr.  Attorney-General  read  the  first  paragraph  stated  in  the 
indictment.  Gentlemen,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  any  good  motive 
that  could  have  induced  the  publication  of  that.  It  is  not  peculiar  to 
any  question  to  be  discussed,  not  expressed  in  any  terms,  but  such  as 
must  excite  the  people  to  resentment  against  the  government.  If, 
gentlemen,  the  ingenuity  of  the  counsel  for  the  traverser  can,  by  force 
of  imagination,  put  a  sense  on  it,  other  than  the  sense  of  exciting  the 
resentment  of  the  people,  let  it  have  full  force  ;  but  from  my  under- 
standing, and  on  the  best  deliberation,  I  am  not  able  to  find  what  dis- 
tinction can  be  given  to  this  sentence,  or  that  it  can  mean  anything 
but  a  general  charge  against  the  administration  of  justice.  A  charge 
against  that  government,  to  whom  his  Majesty  has  committed  the  care 
of  his  subjects  in  this  kingdom  ;  a  charge  that  woidd  disgrace  the 
basest  of  the  base  that  now  hear  me,  that  the  Lord  Lieutenant  and 
the  King's  ministers,  in  order  to  obtain  a  sanguinary  execution  of  a 
man,  contrived  to  have  drink  introduced  into  the  jury-box,  and  had  a 
man  put  to  death  under  colour  of  law ! 

Mr.  Attorney- General  read  the  several  paragraphs  which  fol- 
lowed the  above  one,  and  observed  upon  them  all. 

You  find,  gentlemen,  that  the  Lord  Lieutenant  is  charged  with 
having  withheld  the  royal  mercy,  of  suffering  a  man  to  be  executed, 
after  it  had  appeared  to  his  lordship,  fi'om  afiidavits  the  most  solemn 
that  had  ever  been  made,  that  the  sufferer  was  innocent. 

Gentlemen,  mercy  is  in  the  discretion  of  the  crown,  it  must  be  ex- 
ercised by  the  King,  or  those  ministers  to  whom  the  executive  govern- 
ment is  entrusted.  The  exercise  of  it  is  on  due  deliberation,  and  a 
clear  examination  of  the  propriety  of  extending  it.  For  what  purpose 
did  the  writer  of  this  libel  introduce  this  paragraph,  but  to  hazard  the 
peace  of  the  country  ?  A  Ubeller  daring  to  assert,  in  the  face  of  the 
woi'ld,  that  a  man  whose  case  was  deliberated  on,  and  who  had  fre- 
quent reprieves  from  execution,  that  the  verdict  against  that  man  was 
obtained  by  introducing  drink  into  the  jury-room,  to  charge  that  a 
verdict  had  been  obtained  by  rcAvard ;  can  any  man  in  this  court  dare 
to  think  such  a  charge  not  libellous  ?  I  believe  in  this,  or  in  Great 
Britain,  since  the  happy  period  of  the  Revolution,  no  man  has  dared 
to  insist,  or  even  to  think,  that  a  verdict  in  a  criminal  case  has  been 
obtained  by  reward  and  drunkenness;  and  I  do  believe  in  my  soul, 
that  he  that  penned  that  libel,  let  him  be  in  what  situation  of  life  he 
may,  when  he  wrote  that  part,  his  soul  told  him  he  was  writing  what 
was  false.  If  it  became  me  to  make  an  appeal,  I  would  appeal  to 
those  who  were  present  at  the  trial,  to  his  friends  that  surrounded 
him,  and  I  would  ask  them,  if  there  was  amongst  them  there  a  man 
who  believed  that  that  verdict  was  obtained  by  reward  or  fraud.  If 
that  is  not  a  libel  upon  the  administration  of  justice  in  this  kingdom, 
I  know  not  what  it  is ;  and  if  it  is  not  found  to  be  so,  let  the  scales 
fall  from  the  hand  of  justice,  and  yield  up  all  you  have  to  destruction. 
If  a  jury  of  the  country  can  find  that  this  is  not  a  libel,  let  all  men 
that  wish  to  be  happy,  dispose  of  their  properties,  and  seek  protection 
for  their  character  and  their  industry  in  some  other  country,  blessed 
with  a  more  happy  constitution. 


504  TRIAL    OF 

Here  is  a  libel  of  a  new  species.  First,  the  world  is  told  that  he 
was  not  guilty  of  the  offence  charged  upon  him,  and  that  he  ought  not 
to  have  suffered ;  but  then,  say  they,  suppose  all  that  has  been  sworn 
was  true,  they  then  tell  the  people  he  suffered  for  taking  an  oath  of 
charity,  insisting  that  that  brothei'hood,  to  which  this  case  is  so  nearly 
related,  is  a  brotherhood  of  charity,  instituted  for  the  benefit  of 
mankind. 

Gentlemen,  you  will  observe  that  the  crime  is  for  taking  an  oath  to 
be  of  a  society  formed  for  seditious  purposes  ;  and,  gentlemen,  the 
libeller,  the  author  of  the  libel,  tells  the  people  that  he  suffered  death, 
not  for  the  crime  with  which  he  knew  he  was  charged,  but  for  having 
taken  an  oath  of  charity  to  men  ! 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  must  see  a  direct  attack  upon  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  country.  Attend  to  the  latter  part  of  thS  publi- 
cation as  a  context  to  the  whole :  you  see  a  direct  attack  on  the 
administration  of  justice ;  she  is  painted  as  blind  drunk,  and  the 
people  are  taught  to  believe  that  no  attention  is  paid  to  justice  by  the 
Lord  Lieutenant,  or  those  whom  he  consults  in  the  administration 
of  it. 

Gentlemen,  here  is  a  direct  charge  with  respect  to  the  trial  of  Orr : 
they  desire  all  thinking  juries  to  be  cautious  how  they  depend  on  the 
recommendation  of  the  presiding  judge,  leading  the  people  to  believe 
that  the  jury  and  the  judge  had  recommended  the  unfortunate  man 
to  mercy,  and  that  mercy  had  been  denied  ;  leading  the  people  to 
believe  that  the  Lord  Lieutenant  pays  no  attention  to  the  recom- 
mendation of  a  judge  or  jury;  recommending  to  the  juror  not  to  find 
a  verdict  according  to  his  oath,  lest  afterwards  the  prisoner  should 
not  be  pardoned.  It  is  a  wicked  doctrine,  endeavoured  to  be  spread 
abroad,  that  the  Lord  Lieutenant  will  not  extend  mercy  where  it 
oixght  to  be  extended.  It  would  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  Lord 
Lieutenant  ought  in  all  cases  extend  mercy,  even  though  the  judge 
should  recommend :  it  belongs  to  the  minister  to  consider  well  before ; 
for  it  might  appear  after  that  the  person  recommended  was  not  an 
object  of  mercy. 

Gentlemen,  in  this  case,  the  case  of  Mr.  Orr,  we  must  suppose  there 
was  much  deliberation,  for  twice  was  he  respited.  I  will  be  bold  to 
say,  that  for  one  hundred  years  the  crown  has  never  refused  to  extend 
mercy  to  those  objects  whom  the  judge  on  the  trial  recommended. 

Gentlemen,  on  the  whole  of  this  case  you  will  consider  whether  this 
paper  could  be  printed  with  any  other  view  than  that  charged.  The 
fact  of  publication  will  be  established  by  the  evidence  ;  I  have  stated 
to  you  that  the  law  requires  that  a  copy  of  every  day's  publication 
should  be  deposited  in  the  Stamp-office,  signed  by  the  pi-oprietor.  But 
it  happens  that  the  copy  deposited  for  the  26th  October,  and  that 
alone,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Stamp-oflice.  How  it  has  gone,  by 
whose  contrivance  or  machinations,  it  is  not  for  me  to  observe  ;  but, 
happily,  we  shall  supply  the  defect,  we  shall  prove  the  paper  having 
been  bought  where  the  Press  is  published,  so  that  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  proof  of  publication.  With  respect  to  the  libel,  to  any 
man  of  common  understanding,  that  knows  anything  of  the  nature  of 
our  laws  and  constitution,  he  cannot  hesitate  a  moment  in  finding  it  to 
be  a  libel.     If  you  think  him  gviilty  of  the  fact  you  will  find  a  verdict 


PETER   FINEUTY.  505 

that  will  have  a  tendency  to  establish  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  to 
restore  with  full  force  the  administration  of  justice  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Attorney-General  then  read  the  opinion  of  Judge  Buller, 
in  the  case  of  the  King  against  Watson  ;  and  he  then  concluded  by 
saying — "  I  will  now  pi'oduce  evidence  that  will  establish  the  fact  of 
publication  ;  and  if  it  is,  as  I  am  instructed  it  will  be,  you  can  have 
no  difficulty  in  finding  the  traverser  guilty." 

Mr.  George  Hatton  sworn. — (An  afiidavit  handed  to  him.) 

Q.  Is  that  your  name  and  handwriting  ?     A.  It  is. 

Q.  Your  are  a  commissioner  of  stamps  ?     A.  I  am. 

Q.  Was  that  afiidavit  sworn  before  you  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  By  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was 
or  not. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Do  you  swear  positively  that  he  (the  traverser) 
made  that  afiidavit? 

Court. — Do  you  swear  that  affidavit  was  made  bofore  you  ?  A. 
I  do. 

Q.  By  a  person  calling  himself  Peter  Finerty  ?  A.  I  asked  him 
if  that  was  his  name  and  hand-writing,  and  he  said  it  was.  The 
affidavit  was  then  read  by  Mr.  Pollock,  the  clerk  of  the  crown,  dated 
the  19th  of  September,  1797,  and  signed  Peter  Finerty. 

John  Kingsborough  sworn. — Examined  by  Mr.  Townsend. 

Q.  Have  yovi  any  newspaper  about  you  ?  A.  I  have.  (The  wit- 
ness produced  the  Press.) 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  it  ?  A.  I  believe  I  bought  it  to  read  it,  and 
gave  it  my  father  to  read. 

Q.  What  became  of  that  paper  after  you  gave  it  to  your  father  ? 
A.  He  returned  this  paper  to  me  (the  one  he  produced)  on  Saturday, 
the  9th  of  December,  as  the  Press  I  gave  to  him. 

Q.  Where  did  you  buy  it  ?     A.  At  No.  4,  Church-lane. 

Cross-examined  by  JMr.  Curran. 

Q.  Pray,  sir,  from  whom  did  you  buy  this  paper  ?  A.I  do  not 
know. 

Q.  Was  it  from  a  common  news-hawker  ?  A.  I  am  positive  it  was 
not. 

Q.  Wliy?  A.  Because  I  went  to  Church-lane  and  bought  the 
paper  that  had  that  letter  from  a  man  in  the  Press  office. 

Q.  You  went  from  mere  curiosity  to  buy  one  ?  A.  I  did,  to  read 
for  my  own  amusement ;  and  I  do  very  often  buy  it  for  myself. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  bought  it  did  you  give  it  to  your  father? 
A.  I  believe  the  evening,  for  I  bought  it  in  the  morning  as  I  was 
going   up  to  the  courts,  and  I  think  I  gave  it  to  him  that  evening. 

Q.  Whose  office  are  you  in  ?     A.  Mr.  Kemmis's. 

Q.  Where  was  the  paper  till  you  lent  it  to  your  father  ?  A.  In  my 
pocket. 

Q.  Where  is  your  father  ? 

.   Mr.  Attorney-General You  say  you  went  there  to  buy  the 

paper  for  your  own  reading  merely  ?     A.  I  very  often  did  ;  I  bought 
it  as  I  went  to  court. 


506  TRIAL  OP 

Court — Did  you  buy  any  other  there  before  ?  A.  I  will  not 
take  upon  me  to  say  that  I  did  ;  but  I  bought  that  for  my  own 
reading. 

Mr.  CuRRAN Who  was  by  when  you  bought  it  ?     A.  I  did  not 

see  anybody  by,  but  the  man  in  the  office  who  sold  it. 

Q.  Are  you  not  particularly  sure  it  was  not  the  traverser  that  sold 
it  ?  A.  No,  indeed,  I  am  not,  but  I  will  not  swear  it  was  not ;  but 
it  might  be  he. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — Did  you  inquire  at  the  Stamp-office 
for  that  particular  paper  ?  A.  I  did  ;  I  was  desired  by  Mr.  Kemmis 
to  go  to  INIr.  Lestrange  and  Mr.  Hatton,  to  attend  him  at  his  house. 

Q.  Did  you  get  the  paper  ?     A.  No,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  search  for  it  ?  A.  No  ;  because  Mr.  Lestrange  told 
me  he  had  it  at  home. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  ask  that  officer  for  it  ?  A.  No ;  I  never  was  sent 
to  him  for  it,  nor  did  I  see  him  relative  to  it.  I  was  told  by  Doctor 
Harvey  that  Mr.  Lestrange  was  out  of  his  reason. 

Thomas  Kingsborough,  examined  by  the  Solicitor-General. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  at  any  time  getting  a  paper  from  your  son  ? 
A.  Yes  ;  and  shortly  after  I  put  it  into  my  desk. 

Q.  Who  took  it  out  of  your  desk  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Which  had  been  under  lock  and  key?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  kept  that  key  yourself  ?     A.  Yes,  I  did. 

Q.  I  suppose  it  was  put  where  you  locked  up  other  things  you 
kept  privately  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  was  the  person  you  gave  it  to  next  after  you  produced  it 
out  of  the  the  desk?     A.  To  my  son. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  a  letter  signed  "Marcus"  in  it?  A.  I  do, 
and  that  was  the  reason  I  kept  it. 

Q.  Your  son  was  the  next  person  you  gave  it  to  after  it  had  been 
delivered  to  you  ?     A.  He  was. 

Question  to  Mr.  John  Kinsborough. — Is  that  the  paper  your  father 
returned  to  you  ?     A.  It  is  the  identical  one  which  he  gave  me. 

Cross-examined  by  Mi*.  M'Nally. 

Q.  You  read  the  letter  before  you  put  the  paper  into  the  desk  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  you  locked  the  paper  up  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  give  it  to  anybody  in  the  house  to  i-ead  ?  A.  I  do  not 
recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  There  are  several  in  the  house  that  might  have  recourse  to  it  ? 
A.  No  ;  I  have  mostly  daughters. 

Q.  Will  you  take  upon  you  to  say  you  did  not  lend  it  ?  A.  I  will 
not ;  but  I  will  take  upon  me  to  say  it  was  not  out  of  my  sight. 

Mr.  M'Nally  submitted  to  the  court,  that  by  a  late  act  of  parliament, 
entitled  "  An  act  for  securing  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,"  every  printer 
of  a  newspaper  is  bound  to  deposit  with  the  officer  of  the  Stamp-office 
an  exact  copy  of  each  and  every  of  such  newspaper ;  that  the  statute 
created  a  superior  species  of  evidence  than  what  was  before  necessary ; 
it  does  say  that  a  ncAvspaper  shall  be  filed,  and  that  the  paper  so  filed 
shall  be  given  in  evidence  as  proof  of  the  publication. 


!  PETER   FINERTY.  507 

\\ 

Mr.  Justice  Downes — Do  you  mean  to  contend  that  there  is  not 
evidence  to  go  to  the  jury  ? 

Mr.  M'Nally. — I  mean,  my  lord,  to  contend  that  the  best  evidence 
the  nature  of  the  case  requires  is  not  produced. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — Mr.  M'Nally,  I  am  sure  there  is  no  gentle- 
man at  the  bar  will  contend  that. 

Mr.  M'Nally — My  lord,  I  do  not  make  the  objection  individually: 
''<  I  act  with  other  gentlemen,  and  I  never  start  a  point  without  con- 
sulting them  ;  and,  my  lord,  it  will  be  contended  for. 

The  Clerk  of  the  Crown  was  going  to  read  the  publication  from 
the  newspaper  proved  by  Mr.  John  Kingsborough. 

Mr.  M'Nally  moved  that  the  record  might  be  given  to  the  tra- 
verser's counsel  to  compare  with  the  publication.  He  said  he  would 
assex't  on  this  point  individually,  that  it  had  been  the  uniform  practice 
on  the  most  material  trials  for  libels  in  England  at  which  he  had 
been  present. 

The  counsel  for  the  prosecution  objected  to  this  ;  and 

The  Court  desired  the  deputy  Clerk  of  the  Crown  to  hold  the 
record  while  Mr.  Pollock,  Clerk  of  the  Crown,  read  the  publication 
from  the  newspaper  as  follows : — The  Press,  Thursday,  October 
26,  1797. 

TO  HIS  EXCELLENCY  THE  LORD  LIEUTENANT. 

My  Lord — I  address  your  Excellency  on  a  subject  as  awful  and 
interesting  as  any  that  hath  engaged  the  feelings  of  this  suffering 
country.  The  oppression  of  an  individual  leads  to  the  oppression  of 
every  member  in  the  state,  as  his  death,  however  speciously  palliated 
by  forms,  may  lead  to  the  death  of  the  constitution.  Your  lordship 
already  anticipates  me ;  and  your  conscience  has  told  you,  that  I 
allude  to  the  circumstance  of  Mr.  Orr,  whose  case  every  man  has 
now  made  his  own,  by  discovering  the  principle  on  which  Mr.  Pitt 
sent  you  to  execute  his  orders  in  Ireland. 

The  death  of  Mr.  Orr  the  nation  has  pronounced  one  of  the 
most  sanguinary  and  savage  acts  that  had  disgraced  the  laws.  In 
perjury,  did  you  not  hear,  my  lord,  the  verdict  was  given  ?  Perjury 
accompanied  with  terror,  as  ten'or  has  marked  every  step  of  your 
government.  Vengeance  and  desolation  were  to  fall  on  those  who 
would  not  plunge  themselves  in  blood.  These  were  not  strong 
enough.  Against  the  express  law  of  the  land,  not  only  was  drink 
introduced  to  the  jury,  but  drunkenness  itself,  beastly  and  criminal 
drunkenness,  was  employed  to  procure  the  murder  of  a  better  man 
than  any  that  now  surrounds  you.  But  well  may  juries  think  them- 
selves justified  in  their  drunken  verdicts,  if  debauched  and  drunken 
judges,  swilling  spirits  on  the  seat  of  justice  itself,  shall  set  the  countiy 
so  excellent  an  example. 

Repentance,  which  is  a  slow  virtue,  hastened  however  to  declare 
the  innocence  of  the  victim.  The  mischief  which  perjury  had  done, 
truth  now  stepped  forward  to  repair  ;  neither  was  she  too  late,  had 
humanity  formed  any  part  of  your  counsels.  Stung  with  remorse,  on 
the  return  of  reason,  part  of  his  jury  solemnly  and  soberly  made  oath, 
that  their  verdict  had  been  given  under  the  unhappy  influence  of 


508  TRIAL   OF 

intimidation  and  drink  ;  and  in  the  most  serious  affidavit  that  ever  was 
made,  by  acknowledging  their  crime,  endeavoured  to  atone  to  God 
and  to  their  country  for  the  sin  into  which  they  had  been  seduced. 

The  informer  too,  a  man  it  must  be  owned  not  much  famed  for 
veracity,  but  stung  Avith  the  like  remorse,  deposed  that  all  he  liad  for- 
mei'ly  sworn  was  malicious  and  untrue,  and  that  from  compunction 
alone  he  was  induced  to  make  a  full  disclosure  of  his  great  and  enor- 
mous guilt.  In  this  confession  the  wicked  man  had  no  temptation  to 
perjury  ;  he  was  not  to  be  paid  for  that ;  he  had  not  in  view,  like 
another  Judas,  the  "  thirty  pieces  of  silver,"  if  he  was  to  receive  his 
reward,  he  knew  he  must  not  look  for  it  in  this  world. 

Those  testimonies  were  followed  by  the  solemn  declaration  of  the 
dying  man  himself;  and  the  approach  of  death  is  not  a  moment  when 
men  are  given  to  deceive  both  themselves  and  the  woi'ld.  Good  and 
religious  men  are  not  apt,  by  perjury  on  their  death-beds,  to  close  the 
gates  of  heaven  against  themselves,  like  those  who  have  no  hope. 
But  if  these  solemn  declarations  do  not  deserve  regard,  then  is  there 
no  truth  in  justice  ;  and  though  the  innocence  of  the  accused  had 
even  remained  doubtful,  it  was  your  duty,  my  lord,  and  you  had  no 
exemption  from  that  duty,  to  have  interposed  your  arm,  and  saved 
him  the  death  that  perjuiy,  di'unkenness,  and  reward  had  prepared  for 
him. 

Let  not  the  nation  be  told  tliat  you  are  a  passive  instrument  in  the 
hands  of  others — if  passive  you  be,  then  is  your  olfice  a  shadow 
indeed  ;  if  an  active  instrmnent,  as  you  ought  to  be,  you  did  not  per- 
form the  duty  which  the  laws  required  of  you  ;  you  did  not  exercise 
the  prerogative  of  mercy — that  mercy  Avhich  the  constitution  had 
entrusted  to  you  for  the  safety  of  the  subject,  by  guarding  him  from 
the  oppression  of  wicked  men.  Innocent  it  appears  he  was  ;  his 
blood  has  been  shed  ;  and  the  precedent  indeed  is  awful. 

Had  Frazer  and  Ross  been  found  guilty  of  the  murder  committed 
on  a  harmless  and  industrious  peasant,  lay  your  hand  to  your  heart, 
my  lord,  and  answer  without  advisers,  would  you  not  have  pardoned 
those  ruffians  ?  After  the  proof  you  have  given  of  your  mercy,  I  must 
suppose  your  clemency  unbounded.  Have  no  Orangemen,  convicted 
on  the  purest  evidence,  been  at  any  time  pardoned  ?  Is  not  their 
oath  of  blood  connived  at  ?  was  not  that  oath  manufactured  at  the 
command  of  power?  and  does  not  power  itself  discipline  those 
brigands  ?  But  suppose  the  evidence  of  Wheatly  had  been  true,  what 
was  the  offence  of  Mr.  Orr  ?  not  that  he  had  taken  an  oath  of  blood 
and  extermination — for  then  he  had  not  suffered ;  but  that  he  had 
taken  an  oath  of  charity  and  of  iinion,  of  humanity  and  of  peace,  he 
has  suffered.  Shall  we  then  be  told  that  your  government  will  con- 
ciliate public  opinion,  or  that  the  people  will  not  continue  to  look  for 
a  better  ? 

"Was  the  unhappy  man  respited  but  to  torture  him,  to  insult  both 
justice  and  the  nation,  to  carry  the  persecution  into  the  bosom  of  his 
wife  and  childi-eu  ?  Is  this  the  prerogative  of  mercy  ?  What  would 
your  father  have  said  unto  you,  had  he  lived  to  witness  this  falling 
off?  "  Son,"  he  would  have  said,  "  I  am  a  father,  I  have  a  daughter, 
I  have  known  misfortune :  the  world  has  pitied  me.  and  I  am  not 
ungrateful." 


PETER   FINERTY.  509 

Let  us  explore  the  causes  of  this  sanguinary  destruction  of  the 
people.  Is  it  that  you  are  determined  to  revenge  the  regret  expressed 
by  them  at  the  recall  of  your  predecessor;  and,  well  knowing  they 
will  not  shed  tears  at  the  departure  of  his  successor,  that  you  are 
resolved  to  make  them  weep  during  your  stay  ?  Yes,  my  lord,  I 
repeat  during  your  stay,  for  it  may  not  be  necessaiy  that  a  royal 
yacht,  manned  and  decorated  for  the  purpose,  should  waft  you  from 
the  shores  of  an  angered  and  insulted  country. 

Another  cause.  Is  it  to  be  wondered  that  a  successor  of  Lord 
Fitzwilliam  should  sign  the  death-warrant  of  Mr.  Orr?  Mr.  Pitt 
had  learned  that  a  merciful  Lord  Lieutenant  was  unsuited  to  a 
government  of  violence.  It  was  no  compliment  to  the  native  cle- 
mency of  a  Camden  that  he  sent  you  into  Ireland  ;  and  what  has  been 
our  portion  under  the  change  but  massacre  and  rape,  military  murders, 
desolation,  and  terror  ? 

Had  you  spared  JNIr.  Orr,  you  thought,  perhaps,  the  numerous 
families  of  those  whom  your  administration  had  devoted,  might  accuse 
you  of  partiality  ;  and  thus,  to  prove  your  consistency,  you  are  con- 
tent to  be  suspected  of  wanting  the  only  quality  this  coimtry  wishes 
you  to  exercise. 

But,  my  lord,  it  will  not  do  ;  though  yom'  guards,  and  your  soldiers, 
and  your  thousands,  and  your  tens  of  thousands,  should  conduct  inno- 
cence to  death — it  will  not  do.  A  voice  has  cried  in  the  wilderness  ; 
and  let  the  deserted  streets  of  Carrickfergus  proclaim  to  all  the 
world,  that  good  men  will  not  be  intimidated,  and  that  they  are  yet 
more  numerous  than  your  soldiers. 

We  are  not  Domitian's  people,  we  are  not  lopped  at  a  blow,  but  it 
looks  as  if  some  fate  had  doomed  us  to  be  destroyed  one  by  one,  as 
the  Persian  tyrant  ordered  the  hairs  to  be  plucked  from  the  tail  of 
his  beast.  Beasts  we  have  been,  the  vile  carriers  of  the  vilest  bur- 
thens that  the  vilest  masters  could  lay  upon  us.  But  the  yoke  is 
shaken,  persecution  has  provoked  to  love,  and  united  L-eland  against 
foreign  despotism- 
Feasting  in  your  castle,  in  the  midst  of  your  myrmidons  and  bishops, 
you  have  little  concerned  yourself  about  the  expelled  and  miserable 
cottager,  whose  dwelling  at  the  moment  of  your  mirth  was  in  flames, 
his  wife  and  his  daughter  then  under  the  violation  of  some  commis- 
sioned ravager,  his  son  agonizing  on  the  bayonet,  and  his  helpless 
infants  crying  in  vain  for  mercy.  These  are  lamentations  that  stain 
not  the  hour  of  carousal.  Under  intoxicated  counsels,  the  constitu- 
tion has  reeled  to  its  centre  ;  justice  herself  is  not  only  blind  drunk, 
but  deaf,  like  Festus,  "  to  the  words  of  soberness  and  truth." 

My  lord,  the  people  of  Ireland  did  hope  that  mercy  would  not 
have  been  denied  to  a  most  worthy  and  innocent  man,  when  they 
understood  that  one  of  the  worst  advisers,  and  most  imperious  members 
of  your  cabinet,  had  abandoned  the  kingdom.  Had  he  been  of  your 
late  counsels,  the  odium  might  have  been  divided ;  at  present  you 
have  the  best  claim  to  it.  Let,  however,  the  awful  execution  of  Mr. 
Orr  be  a  lesson  to  all  unthinking  juries ;  and  let  them  cease  to  flatter 
themselves  that  the  soberest  recommendation  of  theirs,  and  of  the 
presiding  judge,  can  stop  the  course  of  carnage  which  sanguinary, 
and  I  do  not  fear  to  say,  unconstitutional  laws  have  ordered  to  be 


510  TRIAL  OP 

loosed.  Let  them  remember  that,  like  Macbeth,  the  servants  of  the 
crown  have  waded  so  far  in  blood,  that  they  find  it  easier  to  go  on, 
than  to  go  back. 

I  am,  my  Lord, 
Your  Excellency's  humble  servant, 

MARCUS. 

Mr.  Walter  Bourne  was  then  sworn. 

Q.  Pray,  sir,  what  are  you  ?  A.  Deputy  Clerk  of  the  Crown  for 
the  county  of  Antrim. 

Q.  Have  you  the  custody  of  the  criminal  records  of  the  county  ? 
A.  I  have. 

Q.  What  is  that  you  have  in  your  hand  ?  A.  The  record  of  the 
conviction  of  William  Orr. 

Q.  The  original  record  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

[The  beginning  of  the  record  was  read  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown.] 
The  case  rested  on  the  part  of  the  ci'own. 

Mr.  Fletchek,  for  the  traverser,  said,  if  he  was  not  mistaken,  that 
in  point  of  law,  the  counsel  for  the  crown  had  not  sufficiently  proved 
their  case  ;  however  he  did  not  mean  to  object  to  their  supplying  it 
if  they  were  able.  If  he  understood  right,  the  evidence  produced  to 
prove  the  fact  of  proprietorship  consisted  in  this.  The  evidence 
produced  swore  that  an  individual  calling  himself  Peter  Finerty  came 
to  him  and  did  swear  that  affidavit  which  was  produced  in  court. 
But  he  did  not  understand  from  that  evidence  that  Mr.  Finerty,  the 
traverser,  was  the  person  that  swore  that  affidavit.  To  fix  the  fact  of 
proprietorship  upon  the  traverser,  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution 
ought  to  have  gone  a  step  farther.  I  do  conceive,  and  it  has  been 
already  suggested,  that  the  best  evidence  the  natui'e  of  the  case 
required  has  not  been  produced.  All  that  has  appeared  is,  that  a 
man  did  swear  an  affidavit  purporting  that  he  was  the  proprietor  of 
the  Press,  and  did  sign  his  name,  purporting  to  be  the  name  of 
"  Peter  Finerty,"  but  no  evidence  whatever  that  he  was  the  traverser 
at  the  bar.  It  ought  to  have  been  proved  in  some  manner  that  the 
traverser  was  the  person  who  made  the  affidavit.  If  the  deficiency 
can  be  supplied,  I  do  not  care,  but  I  shall  sit  down  to  hear  the  opinion 
of  the  court  upon  it. 

Mr.  CuRRAN  said,  he  trusted  that  it  would  not  be  deemed  necessary 
for  him  to  add  to  what  had  been  stated.  He  took  it  for  granted,  he  said, 
that  there  must  be  some  evidence  of  identity  of  person.  The  affidavit 
that  has  been  read  is  signed  by  a  pei'son  calling  himself  Peter  Finerty, 
but  where  is  the  evidence  that  he  was  the  traverser  at  the  bar  ?  You 
see  that  the  intent  of  the  evidence  is  to  show,  that  he  is  the  proprietor 
of  the  house  in  Church-lane.  His  declaration  of  that  matter  would 
be  easily  given  in  evidence.  Suppose  an  individual  man  came  to  the 
Stamp-office,  and  said  his  name  was  Peter  Finerty,  that  he  lived  in 
Church-lane,  and  was  proprietor  of  the  Press  ;  why  a  thousand  dif- 
ferent persons  might  say  the  same  thing,  and  there  not  be  a  syllable 
of  truth  in  the  whole  of  it.  There  must  be  laid  before  the  jury  evidence 
sufficient  to  satisfy  them  that  the  traverser  at  the  bar  is  the  person 
who  made  that  identical  declaration. 


PETER  FINERTY.  5  1  I 

Mr.  Attorney-General — It  strikes  me  there  is  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  go  to  the  jury. 

Q.  By  the  Jury,  to  Mr.  Hatton — Will  you  swear  the  traverser  at 
the  bar  is  not  the  person  that  made  the  affidavit  ?  A.  I  believe  he 
is  the  man  ;  he  was  dressed  in  a  green  coat,  and  seemed  as  if  he  came 
from  the  printing  business.  It  was  rather  dark  when  I  took  the 
affidavit. 

Q.  Could  any  other  affidavit  have  been  made  without  your  know- 
ledge ?     A.  There  might,  but  not  on  that  day. 

Mr.  CuRRAN — The  act  expressly  says  that  such  affidavit  shall  be 
evidence  against  the  person  who  makes  it. 

A  considerable  delay  followed,  in  consequence  of  the  prosecutors 
having  sent  for  Mr.  Sirr,  who  had  taken  the  traverser  into  custody ; 
at  length  Mr.  Sirr  appeared  and  was  sworn. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Finerty  the  traverser  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Point  him  out  ?     (Mr.  Sirr  identified  him.) 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  having  arrested  him  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  On  what  day,  as  near  as  you  can  recollect,  or  what  month  ? 
A.  It  was  during  the  last  commission. 

Q.  Where  did  you  arrest  Peter  Finerty  the  traverser  ?  A.  In  an 
office,  called  the  Press  office,  in  Church-lane. 

Q.  What  number  ?     A.  Number  4. 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  him  at  that  time  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  Be  so  good  as  to  state  what  that  conversation  was  ?  A.  I  asked 
him  if  his  name  was  Finerty  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  trust  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  will  have  the 
candour  to  apprize  the  counsel  for  the  traverser  what  kind  of  evidence 
they  are  going  to  give. 

Mr.  TowNSEND. — I  am  going  to  show  declarations  of  the  tra- 
verser. 

]Mr.  CuRRAN  (to  the  witness). — Was  the  traverser  induced,  by  any 
hopes  or  fears,  to  say  anything  ? 

This  question  was  objected  to  by  the  counsel  for  the  crown. 

Mr.  M'Nally  mentioned  the  case  of  Paine,  in  5  Mod.  Reports  ; 
where  it  was  ruled,  that  evidence  of  conversation  of  a  prisoner  should 
be  given,  as  well  what  he  said  in  his  own  behalf,  as  what  made  against 
him. 

The  counsel  for  the  crown  were  desired  to  proceed  by  the  court. 

Mr.  TowNSEND  (to  the  witness) You  will  be  kind  enough  to  tell 

what  the  conversation  you  had  with  the  traverser  was  ?  A.  I  asked 
him  if  his  name  was  Finerty,  and  whether  he  was  the  publisher  of  the 
Press,  and  he  told  me  he  was. 

Q.  Is  that  the  man  there  (pointing  to  the  traverser)  ?  A.  That  is 
the  gentleman. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Sampson. 

Q.  Who  was  present  at  the  conversation  ?  A.  I  believe  three  or 
four. 

Q.  Can  you  name  them  ?  A.  There  was  one  I  would  know,  if  I 
saw  him  ;  but  I  do  not  know  his  name. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  the  traverser  if  he  was  the  person  who  signed  the 
affidavit  ?     A.  I  know  nothing  of  the  affidavit. 


512  TRIAL  OF 

Q.  Did  you  say  he  acknowledged  the  publication  of  the  letter 
signed  "  Marcus  ?"     A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Was  there  any  friend  of  yours  there  ?  A.  There  was  ;  but  I 
did  not  know  it,  till  I  saw  him  in  the  office. 

Q.  Had  you  a  warrant  to  arrest  him  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  And  you  went  singly  ?     A.  No  ;  there  was  a  man  with  me. 

Q.  What  was  his  name  ?     A.  Mitchell. 

Q.  Where  does  he  live  ?     A.  In  Ship-street. 

Q.  What  is  his  business  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  How  did  you  happen  to  know  him,  and  not  his  business  ?  A.  I 
knew  him  to  be  an  evidence  for  the  crown. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  the  publication  that  you  arrested  him  ? 
A.  I  should  imagine  after ;  it  was  during  the  last  commission. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  him  when  you  took  him  ?  A.  I  took 
him  to  the  Castle  guard-house,  and  had  him  escorted  to  Newgate. 

Q.  You,  sir,  are  also  zealous,  I  understand,  for  the  liberty  of  the 
press,  and  the  suppression  of  its  licentiousness — are  you  the  gentle- 
man that  chased  the  carrier  of  the  Press,  in  the  night  time,  with  a 
drawn  sword  ? 

Mr  Justice  Downes. — What !  ask  a  man  if  he  pursued  another 
with  a  drawn  sword  !     I  do  not  think  you  have  a  right  to  ask  it. 

Mr.  Sampson My  lord,  I  surely  have  a  right  to  ask  it.     If  the 

witness  was  doing  his  duty,  he  might  do  so  ;  if  he  was  committing  an 
offence,  he  need  not  acquiesce.  If  he  has  not  a  mind  to  answer,  let 
him  be  silent. 

Mr.  SiRR I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  person  stop  the  carrier  in  the  public  street  ? 
A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Pray,  sir,  do  you  know  of  Mr.  Finerty's  being  taken  out  of  the 
gaol  to  the  house  of  an  alderman  one  night  ?  A.  I  do  not ;  I  was 
not  present. 

Q.  Do  you  know  is  the  Press  in  the  pay  of  the  government,  or  the 
treasury  ?     A.  I  should  suppose  not. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  there  are  other  papers  in  the  pay  of  the 
treasury  ? 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — I  do  not  think  that  question  material  to  the 
point. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — My  lord,  it  strikes  me  it  is  material  in  this  point  of 
view.  This  is  a  prosecution  carried  on  in  the  name  of  the  state,  for  a 
libel  on  the  executive  government ;  and  it  may  therefore  be  necessary 
for  the  jury  to  know  that  the  government  have  papers  in  pay  to 
panegyrize  them. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.— The  conduct  of  government  certainly  is  not  the 
subject  of  the  present  question. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Yes  it  is  ;  and  may  be  the  very  ground  of  defence. 

Mr.  Jvistice  Downes  (to  Mr.  Sampson). — What  question  do  you 
put? 

Ml'.  Sampson — My  lord,  they  are  many  ;  all  necessary  to  let  the 
jury  judge  of  the  degree  of  malice  and  guilt  of  this  particular  charge. 
The  lii'st  question  I  would  put  is,  whether  the  witness  knows  what 
papers  are  paid  by  the  government  ? 

Mr.  TowNSEND I  beg  leave  to  object  to  that. 


PETER  FINERTY.  513 

Mr.  CuRRAN — We  contend  for  it  on  this  ground  :  the  conduct  of 
government  has  been  stated  to  be  abused  by  this  publication  ;  and  the 
conduct  of  government  may  be  part  of  our  defence. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — I  do  not  know  that  the  court  sits  to  enquire 
into  the  conduct  of  government. 

Mr.  Attorney-General I  do  object  to  that  question  ;  I  came 

by  the  desire  of  the  government  to  prosecute  for  this  libel,  to  which 
the  defendant  at  the  bar  has  pleaded  not  guilty,  and  they  now  desire 
to  go  into  evidence  that  the  ministers  of  the  crown  have  done  some- 
thing wrong,  to  justify  what  has  been  done  by  the  prisoner.  I  do 
object  to  it  altogether. 

Mr.  Sampson — I  believe  there  is  one  rule  of  law  and  evidence  for 
the  croAvn  and  the  subject,  and  God  forbid  it  should  be  otherwise ; 
that  nothing  shall  be  stated  but  what  is  intended  to  be  proved,  or  is 
material  to  the  cause  of  the  party  stating  it.  The  Press  has  been 
stated  to  be  part  of  a  system  of  sedition  and  of  provocation,  and  the 
jury  have  been  prepared  to  hear  much  evidence  on  that  ground  ;  but 
I  trust  we  do  not  live  in  a  country  where  the  people  are  to  submit  to 
every  abuse  without  even  daring  to  complain,  where  the  Press  is  to 
be  licentious  on  the  one  side,  and  put  down  by  military  force  on  the 
other — it  is  well  to  recollect  at  times  that  the  doctrine  of  passive 
obedience  and  non-resistance  is  treason  in  our  law,  and  remonstrance 
is  not,  and  that  extreme  provocation  is  always  some  excuse  for  the 
warmth  of  expostulation. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes To  the  point,  sir,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  vSampson. — The  point  is  this  ;  it  was  stated  that  the  Press 
was  part  of  a  system  of  licentiousness,  and  I  am  about  to  shew  that 
there  are  papers  that  say  what  they  please  on  one  side  ;  and  if  I  can 
I  will  prove  that  this  is  part  of  no  other  system  than  that  of  repelling 
argument  by  argument,  assertion  by  assertion,  invective  by  invective, 
and  that  at  a  time  when  they  have  100,000  armed  men  on  the  oppo- 
site side  of  the  question,  and  this  nothing  for  its  defence  but  paper 
shot.  I  wish  to  know  if  I  may  ask  the  witness  whether  he  knows  of 
other  papers,  in  the  pay  of  government  ? 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — That  is  the  question  I  have  already  said  is 
not  relevant  to  the  case  ;  therefore  it  shall  not  be  asked. 

Mr.  Sampson. — Did  you  ever  hear  of  the  Northern  Star  being  put 
down  by  soldiers  ?     A.  I  have  heard  of  it. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — I  do  not  conceive  that  question  to  be  more 
material. 

Mr.  Fletcher We  beg  to  be  set  right  if  we  are  wrong  ;  but  we 

suppose  passive  obedience  and  non-resistance  is  treason  in  our  law, 
and  remonstrance  is  not ;  and  that  extreme  pi-ovocation  is  always 
some  excuse  for  the  warmth  of  expostulation.  We  are  to  defend  our 
client  for  publishing  a  false,  malicious,  and  seditious  libel ;  we  suppose 
the  malice  is  deducible  from  the  falsehood.  It  is  stated  to  be  a 
malicious  libel  against  the  government  of  the  country,  and  part  of  a 
system  to  bring  the  administration  of  justice  into  contempt,  and  to 
dissolve  the  government.  That  we  conceive  to  be  the  question  before 
the  jury,  and  therefore  whether  it  is  a  libel  or  not ;  and  in  order  to 
shew  that  is  a  libel,  it  must  be  shewn  that  the  publication  was  pub- 
lished falsely  and  maliciously,  and  therefore  we  do  conceive  we  have 

2  L 


514  TRIAL  OF 

a  right  to  shew  that  it  is  not  a  false  and  malicious  libel.  In  the  case 
of  murder  would  it  not  be  evidence  to  shew  every  anterior  circum-  I 
stance,  to  shew  the  acts  of  the  pai-ty  killed  having  tended  to  the 
provocation  ?  Does  not  the  malice  arise  fi-om  the  falsity  of  the 
charge  ?  Would  it  not  be  evidence  to  shew,  that  one  party  struck, 
and  the  other  repelled.  Is  not  that  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury? 
Therefore  if  we  should  give  evidence  to  shew  that  'when  this  publi- 
cation was  written,  it  was  under  an  idea  of  the  truth  of  the  facts,  not 
thinking  them  to  have  been  false,  would  not  that  go  to  the  jury  as 
evidence  of  the  intention. 

Mr.  Justice  Dowist;s — I  do  not  conceive  it  at  all  material  to  the 
question  before  the  jury. 

IMr.  Samfson  (to  I!»Ir.  Sirr). — Did  you  at  any  time  seize  upon  a 
parcel  of  those  papers,  entitled  the  Press  ? 

Mr.  Sirr  objected  to  answer  the  question,  if  he  was  not  obliged. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — You  are  not  obliged  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Sampson. — If  it  will  criminate  you,  sir,  if  you  see  that  you  are 
in  danger  by  answering,  I  will  not  persist,  otherwise  you  wiU  answer 
it  certainly. 

Mr.  Sirr I  will  not  answer  it. 

Mr.  Sampson Did  you  attend  Mr.  Finerty  the  night  he  was 

taken  out  of  the  prison,  and  carried  before  the  Alderman  ?     A.  I 
know  nothing  about  it. 

Q.  What  office  do  you  hold  ?     A.  I  am  deputy  town-major. 

Q.  Are  you  a  magistrate  ?     A.  No  further. 

Mr.  CuRRAX. — I  hope  your  lordship  will  be  of  opinion  that  the 
counsel  for  the  prosecution  have  not  established  the  case,  and  that  it, 
therefore,  will  not  be  necessary  for  the  coimsel  for  the  traverser  to 
state  any  case,  and  that  the  prosecutors  having  been  admitted  to  the 
indulgence  of  strengthening  their  evidence  once,  by  calling  Mr.  Sirr, 
that  they  will  not  be  indulged  again.  It  does  not  appear  that  any 
charge  has  been  sufficiently  proved  to  make  evidence  to  go  to  the 
jury  ;  the  evidence  only  goes  to  this,  Mr.  Hatton  swore  that  he  took 
an  affidavit  of  somebody  who  signed  the  affidavit,  and  that  it  was 
dark ;  he  did  not  undertake  to  swear  to  the  person  of  any  man,  as 
having  made  that  affidavit ;  therefore  as  the  evidence  does  rest  there, 
namely,  that  there  was  an  affidavit  sworn  before  him  by  somebody 
calling  himself  Finerty,  now  the  question  is,  whether  the  want  of 
proof  of  the  identity  of  the  person  who  so  swore  the  affidavit  has  been 
supplied  or  not  ?  I  say  not,  because  they  could  not  by  law  be  admitted 
to  go  into  the  evidence  they  have  endeavoured  to  give. 

It  has  been  stated  by  the  crown,  that  there  was  an  affidavit  made 
by  the  traverser,  which  affidavit  has  been  produced  in  court  ;  and 
that  affidavit  is  the  only  evidence  they  could  give  ;  according  to  the 
law  they  ought  not  to  have  travelled  out  of  it ;  here  is  a  written  evi- 
dence put  upon  the  record  of  the  county.  The  evidence  can  only  be 
supported  by  proving  that  the  traverser  was  the  person  who  swore 
that  affidavit,  and  that  proof  could  only  have  been  made  by  the  person 
before  whom  the  affidavit  was  made. 

Mr.  Justice   Downes By  the  traverser's   admission  it  may  be 

proved. 

Mr.  CuBRAN — I  would  not  controvert  that,  but  I  say,  in  support  of 


PETER  FINERTY.  515 

the  position  laid  down,  when  the  observation  Avas  made,  that  there  is 
written  evidence  that  must  be  given,  and  no  secondary  evidence  can 
be  received.  I  take  it  to  be  the  law,  that  where  evidence  is  stated  to 
be  on  written  paper,  that  that  written  evidence  must  alone  be  resorted 
to,  unless  it  be  proved  to  be  destroyed.  Suppose  a  bond  in  court, 
could  anything  but  that  bond  be  let  to  go  to  the  jury,  proved  as  it 
may  be  ?  But  could  you  receive  evidence  that  the  party  did  acknov/- 
ledge  that  he  had  signed  the  bond  ?  It  certainly  could  not  be  done. 
There  are  a  variety  of  ways  in  which  that  affidavit  may  be  proved  ; 
but  I  do  take  it  to  be  a  rule  of  laAV,  that  the  mere  declaration  of  the 
party  cannot  be  received  in  a  court  of  justice. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — Do  you  say  there  is  no  admissible  proof  of 
a  publication  in  a  newspaper  ;  and  that  the  affidavit  is  the  only  posi- 
tive proof  the  law  allows  ?  I  think  it  may  be  proved  by  more  ways 
than  one,  as  a  debt  may  be  due  by  more  ways  than  by  bond. 

Mr.  CuRRAN What  is  the  evidence  of  Sirr  ?    That  he  went  to  the 

Press  office,  that  he  arrested  a  man  there  ?  But  I  do  not  rest  my 
objection  on  one  man  going  to  arrest  another,  taking  him  by  the 
throat ;  and  that  under  the  terror  of  such  usage  he  said  he  was  the 
printer  and  publisher  of  the  paper  in  question  that  contained  the 
libel ;  that  he  was,  at  the  time  he  was  taken,  the  printer  and  publisher 
of  that  paper  ;  but  is  there  any  proof  that  he  knew  of  the  publication 
before  it  appeared,  or  that  he  was  the  printer  of  the  paper  at  the  time 
of  that  publication?  Is  this  to  go  to  the  jury?  There  is  evidence 
he  was  the  printer  on  Saturday,  therefore  he  must  be  the  printer  on 
Monday !  Suppose  a  week  before,  suppose  a  month  before,  can  the 
jury  find  that  because,  perhaps  through  terror,  he  said  he  was  the 
printer  on  the  Saturday,  that  he  must  have  been  the  pi'inter  a  month 
before.  In  the  case  of  Rabb,  printer  of  the  Northern  Star — that  was 
a  publication  in  a  paper  that  is  now  dead.  I  remember  the  objection 
allowed  by  the  court  was,  that  the  affidavit  did  state  that  Rabb  Avas 
proprietor  of  the  pajier  at  the  time  of  his  making  the  affidavit  before 
the  proper  officer ;  but  it  did  not  appear  in  evidence  that  he  was 
proprietor  of  the  paper  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  libel,  and 
the  court  allowed  the  objection. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — The  judges  were  afterwards  of  opinion 
that  the  objection  ought  not  to  have  been  allowed,  and  I  think  the 
court  were  wrong  in  not  allowing  the  proof  to  be  sufficient,  on  this 
ground,  that  Rabb  had  continued  to  be  printer  till  the  time  of  publi- 
cation. 

Mr.  CuRRAX  submitted,  that  from  what  he  had  said,  he  trusted  the 
court  would  be  of  opinion,  there  was  not  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury. 

Mr.  Attorney-General Mr.  Curran  has  stated  facts  that  do 

not  arise  on  the  case  at  all ;  the  question  must  go  to  the  jury,  and  I 
am  convinced  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury,  and  that 
there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  convict  the  traverser.  The  question  is 
not  whether  he  made  that  affidavit  produced  from  the  Stamp  Office, 
the  question  is,  whether  he  be  the  publisher  of  the  libel  or  not? 
There  is  sufficient  evidence  to  the  jury  that  the  traverser  was  the 
publisher,  at  the  place  stated  in  the  affidavit,  that  is,  No.  4,  Church- 
lane. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes I  do  think  there  is  evidence,  that  it  was 


516  TRIAL  OF 

printed  at  No.  4,  Church-lane,  and  Mr.  Sirr  has  said  that  he  went  to 
that  house,  and  found  tlie  traverser  there,  who  said  his  name  was 
Peter  Finerty,  and  that  he  was  the  printer  of  the  Press.  I  think 
there  is  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury. 

Q.  Juror  (to  Mr.  Hatton) Was  there  any  other  person  registered 

as  proprietor  of  that  paper  but  the  man  who  made  the  affidavit?  A. 
No;  there  was  not. 

Q.  Could  there  be  any  other  without  your  knowledge  ?  A.  No ; 
there  could  not. 

Q.  Mr.  Fletcher  (for  the  traverser). — Are  there  not  other  Com- 
missioners of  Stamps  ?     A.  There  are  four. 

Q.  Might  not  the  affidavit  have  been  taken  by  them  ?  A.  It  is 
not  likely  on  that  day  ;  I  do  believe  it  was  the  traverser  at  the  bar 
that  made  the  affidavit. 

Q.  Mr.  Justice  Downes If  there  had  been  any  other  made  would 

it  have  appeared  on  that  paper  you  have  ?     A.  No  ;  it  would  not. 

Q.  By  a  Juror. — If  the  property  had  been  changed  would  there  not 
have  been  another  affidavit  ?     A.  There  ought  to  be  another  sworn. 

Mr.  J.  Sheares  (for  the  traverser). — If  they  give  up  the  affidavit, 
they  must  give  some  other  thing  in  evidence  to  support  their  case. 

Mr.  Attorney-General We  give  up  nothing  ;  we  rest  here  on 

the  part  of  the  croAvn. 

Mr.  Fletcher  (for  the  traverser)  began  by  saying  that  he  did 
not  know  he  would  have  any  duty  to  discharge  in  the  present 
case.  It  Avas  late  on  the  night  before  when  he  found  his  brief  lying 
on  his  table,  and  when  he  saw  on  the  back  of  it  the  two  respect- 
able names  of  Mr.  Curran  and  Mr.  Ponsonby,  who  had  precedence  of 
him,  he  did  not  expect  he  would  have  had  more  to  do  than,  with  the 
other  counsel,  merely  to  have  examined  the  witnesses.  He  mentioned 
this  to  the  court  and  the  jury  that  if  he  should  not  appear  to  be 
arranged  in  what  he  was  going  to  state  that  he  might  not  be  charged 
with  inattention.  The  traverser,  he  said,  stood  charged  with  having 
printed  and  published,  and  having  caused  to  be  printed  and  published 
a  false,  scandalous,  and  seditious  libel.  To  establish  the  guilt  upon 
the  traverser,  there  were  two  things  of  which  the  jury  should  be  con- 
vinced ;  and  they  Avere  called  on  to  dischai'ge  a  most  aAvful  and 
solemn  duty ;  they  must  be  convinced  of  two  substantial  and  material 
facts,  of  any  of  which,  if  they  had  any  the  least  hesitation,  they  were 
bound  by  everything  that  Avas  sacred  to  acquit  the  traverser.  The 
first  point  they  had  to  decide  was,  Avhether  he  did  print  and  publish 
the  paper  in  question,  stated  to  be  a  false,  seditious,  and  malicious 
libel,  and  they  must  haA^e  fully  satisfied  their  minds  upon  that  point, 
before  they  were  called  upon  to  entertain  the  second,  and  then  they 
must  consider  whether  the  paper  in  question  is  a  false,  seditious,  and 
malicious  libel  or  not  ? 

With  respect  to  the  preliminary  point,  whether  he  did  publish  the 
paper  in  question,  the  jury  had  heai'd  much  said,  and  urged  by  the 
counsel  for  the  prosecution  to  induce  the  court  to  be  of  that  opinion. 
The  counsel  for  the  traverser  did  conceive  that  there  was  not  sufficient 
evidence  to  go  to  the  jury,  for  them  to  exercise  their  duty  upon  ;-but 
the  disposal  of  that  question  by  the  court  did  not  preclude  the  jury 
from  exercising  their  judgment.     The  court  was  not  called  upon  to 


PETER    FINERTY.  517 

give  an  opinion,  and  all  the  court  did  do  was  to  decide  that  there  was 
sufficient  evidence  for  the  jury  to  exercise  their  discretion  upon,  from 
the  circumstances  sworn  to;  therefore,  the  jury  ought  to  be  convinced, 
beyond  a  shadow  of  doubt,  that  the  traverser  at  the  bar  was  the  pub- 
lisher of  that  paper,  stated  to  be  a  false,  malicious,  and  seditious 
libel. 

He  besought  the  jury  to  advert  to  the  evidence  which  had  been 
given,  and  if  it  did  not  Hash  conviction  to  their  minds  the  judge  would 
tell  them  it  was  the  boast  of  the  criminal  code  of  this  country,  that 
where  there  was  a  doubt,  there  was  an  imperious  call  upon  them  to 
acquit.  He  trusted  the  jury  would  exercise  that  reason  wuth  which 
they  were  endowed  ;  for  by  the  verdict  they  should  give,  must  his 
client  stand  or  fall.  They  were,  therefore,  called  on  to  exercise  with 
calmness,  and  divested  of  passion,  as  far  as  human  minds  are  capable 
of  being  divested,  that  discretion  with  which  they  had  been  inti'usted 
by  the  law. 

The  evidence  which  had  been  laid  before  the  jury  amounted  to 
this :  an  affidavit  is  stated,  purporting  to  have  been  sworn  by  a  man 
who  passed  for  Peter  Finerty — that  has  been  proved ;  but  as  to  any 
identity  of  the  traverser  at  the  bar  being  the  person  who  made  the 
affidavit,  there  is  not  the  smallest  evidence.  His  hand-writing  has 
not  been  proved.  There  has  not  been  a  tittle  of  evidence  of  either  of 
these  facts,  of  his  identity,  or  of  his  hand- writing ;  and,  to  a  demon- 
stration, no  man  of  reason  could  draw  that  conclusion,  that  the 
traverser  was  the  identical  person  that  made  the  affidavit.  That  the 
proprietorship  of  the  paper  was  in  the  traverser,  there  was  not  an  iota 
of  evidence.  What  is  the  other  evidence  to  support  this  ?  A  young 
gentleman  (Mr.  Kingsborough,  clerk  to  the  CroAvn- Solicitor,)  bought 
a  paper  containing  that  letter  or  writing  signed  "  Marcus,"  and  which 
is  charged  as  the  libel,  for  his  own  amusement ;  and  you  are  told  that 
he  bought  it  at  a  certain  house ;  that  he  gave  it  afterwards  to  his  father 
to  read  ;  that  his  father  put  it  by  after  he  had  read  it ;  and  that  he 
afterwards  I'eturned  it  to  his  son;  and  upon  that  evidence  are  the  jury 
called  upon  to  decide  that  the  traverser  was  guilty  of  having  published 
that  paper  called  a  libel.  What  is  the  evidence  of  the  fact  ?  That 
Mr.  Kingsborough  bought  the  paper  at  a  certain  house ;  not  seeing 
the  traverser  there ;  not  buying  the  paper  from  him,  having  no  com- 
munication whatever  with  him.  When  the  jury  coupled  these 
together,  when  they  recollect  that  there  was  a  legislative  interference, 
namely,  the  necessity  imposed  upon  printers  by  the  stamp  act  of  fur- 
nishing a  paper  to  the  stamp  office,  which  should  be  lodged  there  ; 
when  they  recollected  that  the  paper,  and  the  only  paper  missing,  was 
the  identical  one  in  which  this  libel  is  charged  to  have  been  printed, 
is  not  produced  on  this  occasion,  it  is  a  conclusive  argument  that  there 
is  something  singular  in  the  case.  What  has  become  of  that  paper  ? 
Where  has  it  gone  to  ?  If  it  was  lodged  it  must  have  been  brought 
forward,  and  it  then  might  appear  that  the  traverser  did  not  authen- 
ticate it.  I  put  the  non-production  of  it  on  the  prosecutors  if  it  was 
lodged  ;  and  by  the  non-production  of  that  paper,  there  begets  a  rea- 
sonable suspicion  that  if  it  was  produced,  it  would  appear  to  have  been 
authenticated  by  some  other  signature,  and  not  to  have  been  the 
traverser's.     The  non-production  of  it  makes  the  prosecution  weaker 


518  TRIAL  OF 

than  if  no  act  of  parliament  had  passed,  because  if  it  had  been  pro- 
duced the  production  of  it  might  have  established  the  contrary  of  the 
fact,  and  would  have  shewn  that  the  traverser  was  not  the  man  that 
had  authenticated  it  with  his  name. 

Mr.  Fletcher  continued,  and  said  he  had  gone  through  two  stages 
resorted  to  by  the  prosecution ;  and  after  a  considerable  pause  had 
been,  in  which  the  court  waited  to  enable  the  counsel  for  the  crown  to 
make  out  the  evidence  if  it  could  be  done,  and  then  a  witness  is  pro- 
duced who  stated  that  the  traverser  acknowledged  to  him  that  he  was 
the  publisher  of  the  paper ;  that  point  had  been  much  argued,  but  if 
the  jury  were  not  convinced  as  reasonable,  honest,  and  conscientious 
men,  having  no  doubt  on  their  minds  ;  that  the  traverser  did  really 
publish  the  paper  in  question  if  they  doubted  ;  if  they  hesitated  on 
the  question,  it  was  their  duty,  by  the  spirit  of  the  criminal  law,  to 
acquit  the  traverser.  But  if  contrary  to  his  opinion,  and  which  he 
should  never  believe  the  jury  could,  unless  they  had  some  private 
evidence  not  disclosed,  any  man  in  the  box  having  such  internal 
private  evidence,  ought  to  come  forward  and  offer  himself  to  be 
examined  in  court  as  to  whatever  fact  he  might  be  in  possession  of. 
If  any  of  the  jury  was  in  possession  of  any  such  evidence  it  was  not 
then  too  late  for  him  to  offer  himself,  and  come  forward  to  be 
examined. 

Having  touched  upon  the  first  question  for  the  consideration  of  the 
jury,  he  would  now  go  to  the  second  part  of  the  case  ;  whether  the 
paper  was  a  seditious,  false,  and  malicious  paper  or  not.     In  discharge 
of  that  province  which  was  assigned  to  the  jury,  he  said  they  were 
the  sole  judges  of  the  law  as  well  as  the  fact.     As  to  the  question 
whether  the  writing  was  a  false  and  seditious  one,  he  would  tell  the 
jury  that  antecedently  to  some  years  back,  for  it  was  but  a  few  years 
since  the  old  common  law  was  restored  in  both  countries,  juries  had 
been  told  for  more  than  half  a  century  that  as  to  the  fact  of  falsehood 
and  malice  they  had  nothing  to  do,  that  they  had  merely  to  find  the  fact 
of  the  publication ;  that  doctrine  has  gone  to  sleep,  and  peace  be  with  it. 
When  a  paper  was  written  against  an  individual  it  was  stated  to  be  mali- 
cious ;  if  the  government  was  attacked,  "  seditious  "  was  added  by  impli- 
cation of  law.  Mr.  Attorney- General  has  stated  to  the  jury  the  trial  and 
conviction  of  a  person  of  whom  the  jury  must  have  all  heard  (Mr.  Orr). 
It  was  stated  that  the  conviction  of  that  unfortunate  man  had  been 
obtained  by  the  perjury  of  the  witness  who  prosecuted  him,  but  it  was 
not  charged  by  whom  the  perjury  was  procured.     It  does  not  appear 
whether  perjury  was  discovered  before  the  trial  or  after,  and  (says 
Mr.  Fletcher)  I  have  a  right  to  suppose  that  the  cii'cumstancies  were 
not  disclosed  at  the  trial.     He  would  therefore  take  it  for  granted  that 
there  did  not  appear  to  the  learned  judge  who  presided  at  the  trial  of 
Mr.  Orr  any  circumstances  that  could  call  on  him  to  state  to  the  jury 
his  doubts,    if  he  had   any,   as  to  the   credit  of  the   witness.     Mr. 
Fletcher  said  he  would  take  it  in  the  most  offensive  way  against  the 
traverser,  and  put  it  to  the  jury  if  these  facts,  which  have  been  stated, 
did  appear  after  the  trial,  if  it  was  a  false  and  malicious  libel  to 
ground  tlieir  verdict  of  guilty ;  it  had  been  stated  to  them  that  con- 
viction followed  the  trial.     But  what  followed  that  ?     Certain  of  Mr. 
Orr's  jury  did  come  forward  and  state  upon  their  oaths,  that  drink 


PETER  FINERTY.  519 

had  been  introduced  into  the  jury-room  to  influence  that  verdict  which 
ought  to  have  been  given  in  sobriety  and  reason.  If  the  fact  be  as 
stated  by  those  juroi's,  if  by  weakness  of  mind  produced  by  liquor, 
and  influenced  by  the  rest  of  the  jury,  if  these  be  the  foots,  as  I  am 
instructed  to  say  they  are,  what  will  the  jury  upon  their  oaths  say, 
that  the  publication  of  those  facts  were  a  Mse  and  malicious  libel  ? 
What  shall  I  say  to  that  government  that  would  not  interpose  its 
power  and  save  the  victim  from  destruction  ?  No  charge  against  the 
administration  of  justice  in  the  country  can  by  any  fair  deduction  be 
elucidated  from  the  words  stated,  all  that  can  be  extracted  from  it  is, 
that  the  verdict  was  obtained  by  perjury  ;  if  that  be  true,  it  establishes 
this,  namely,  that  it  was  procured  in  a  manner  that  it  ought  not  to  have 
been  obtained.  Suppose  the  witness  had  not  sworn  true,  suppose  the 
verdict  had  been  obtained  by  intimidation,  and  introduction  of  drink 
into  the  jury-box,  suppose  all  this  to  have  been  stated,  suppose  you  would 
be  induced  to  believe  that  the  verdict  had  been  obtained  by  perjury, 
seconded  by  drunkenness ;  I  ask  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  what  would 
be  the  feeling  of  any  honest  man,  supposing  the  facts  true,  can  human 
nature  furnish  words  black  enough  to  apply  to  such  a  conviction,  what 
would  be  the  opinion  of  any  honest  man  Avhen  he  heard  of  such  a  convic- 
tion ?  This  prosecution  is  stated  to  be  in  vindication  of  the  government 
of  this  country.  I  stand  forth  in  endeavouring  to  convince  you  that  an 
honest  indignation  has  a  right  to  observe  upon  those  actions  it  con- 
ceives to  be  bad.  Do  you  imagine,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  I 
would  stand  forward  the  advocate  for  the  licentiousness  of  the  Press  ? 
God  forbid  any  person  should  think  I  would  not  stand  up  the  advocate 
for  the  insulted  laws  of  my  country.  Do  you  conceive  the  justice  of 
the  country  implicated  in  it  ?  God  forbid.  What  is  the  freedom  you 
were  told  you  were  called  upon  to  defend  ?  Does  it  consist  in  inves- 
tigating the  faults  of  the  Press  ?  No  ;  it  is  its  licentiousness  you  are 
to  curb.  You  have  been  told  it  is  the  most  flagitious  of  all  libels. 
The  question  for  you  to  decide  is,  is  it  false?  I  hold  in  my  hand  a 
letter  for  printing  which  the  printer  was  prosecuted  in  England — I 
mean  the  letter  of  the  celebrated  Junius  to  the  King.  Hear  the  words 
of  that  libel :  "  The  people  of  England  are  loyal  to  the  house  of  Hano- 
ver, not  fi'om  a  vain  preference  of  one  family  to  another,  but  from  a 
conviction  that  the  establishment  of  that  family  was  necessary  to  the 
support  of  their  civil  and  religious  liberties.  This,  Sir,  is  a  principle 
of  allegiance  equally  solid  and  rational,  fit  for  Englishmen  to  adopt, 
and  well  worthy  of  your  Majesty's  encouragement;  we  cannot  long 
be  deluded  by  nominal  distinctions.  The  name  of  Stuart  by  itself  is 
only  contemptible  ;  armed  with  the  sovereign  authority  their  principles 
are  formidable.  The  prince  who  imitates  their  conduct  should  be 
warned  by  their  example  ;  and  while  he  plumes  himself  upon  the 
security  of  his  title  to  the  crown,  should  remember  that,  as  it  was 
acquired  by  one  revolution  it  may  be  lost  by  another." 

"  The  people  of  Ireland  have  been  uniformly  plundered  and 
oppressed ;  in  return  they  give  you  every  day  fresh  marks  of  their 
resentment.  They  despise  the  miserable  governor  you  have  sent  them, 
because  he  is  a  creature  of  Lord  Bute  ;  nor  is  it  from  any  natural  con- 
fusion in  their  ideas,  that  they  are  so  ready  to  confound  the  original 
of  a  king  with  the  disgraceful  I'epresentation  of  him." 


520  TRIAL  OF 


i 


The  printer  of  that  letter  was  prosecuted  for  publishing  it,  and  an 
English  jury  would  only  find  him  guilty  of  the  fact  of  publishing,  but 
they  would  not  convict  him  of  having  published  it  with  a  seditious  or 
malicious  intent. 

Mr.  Fletcher  continued  to  argue,  at  considerable  length,  on  the 
discrimination  of  English  juries,  and  the  unbounded  liberty  of  the 
English  subject  to  animadvert  upon  every  public  topic.  It  was  true, 
he  said,  that  the  publication  in  question  was  harsh  and  rude,  and  far 
from  that  pleasing  two-edged  sword  of  Junius.  If,  said  he,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury,  you  shall,  after  what  I  have  said  and  read  to  you,  be  con- 
vinced that  the  publication  in  question  was  published  with  that 
malicious  and  seditious  intention  imputed  to  it  by  the  indictment,  find 
him  guilty  ;  if  I  were  satisfied  of  the  fact,  I  would  be  the  first  to 
desire  you  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Fletcher  then  observed  upon  the  abuse  which  had  been  given 
to  the  character  of  Lord  Moira,  in  the  papers  of  this  country,  to  an 
offspring  of  the  soil  of  Ireland.  Had  he  not  bled  in  the  cause  of 
England  and  of  Ireland  ?  Is  the  freedom  of  the  Press  to  consist  merely 
in  panegyrising  the  measures  of  the  government,  let  them  be  right  or 
wrong  '^  If  that  be  the  freedom  of  the  Press,  he  had  no  idea  of  such  a 
liberty  of  the  Press.  That  is  not  the  liberty  of  the  Press  that  put 
down  ship-money ;  that  is  not  the  liberty  of  the  Press  that  brought 
the  present  King  to  the  throne ;  that  was  not  the  liberty  of  the  Press 
that  produced  the  Revolution.  In  the  case  of  the  dispensing  powers, 
what  do  the  seven  bishops  not  owe  to  the  liberty  of  the  Press  ?  That 
was  not  the  liberty  of  the  Press  that  forced  the  house  of  Stuart  from 
the  throne.  The  liberty  of  the  Press  does  not  consist  in  panegyrising 
the  government  of  the  country,  or  in  libelling  individuals.  But  if  a 
fact  of  the  kind  stated  in  a  publication,  and  we  shall  have  evidence  to 
convince  you  of  it,  and  to  induce  you  to  believe  that  by  the  publica- 
tion of  that  fact  the  freedom  of  the  Press  was  well  exerted,  will  you 
say  it  is  false  and  malicious  ? 

It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  the  prosecution  is  carried  on  to 
vindicate  the  ways  of  Mr.  Pitt  to  this  country.  Marvellous  indeed  ! 
The  publication  states  that  there  are  burnings  and  rapine,  and  desola- 
tion in  the  land.  I  conjure  you  to  lay  your  hands  to  your  hearts,  as 
God  shall  deal  with  you,  and  I  ask  you  is  there  desolation  and  burn- 
ings in  the  country  ?  If  you  do  say  that  there  are,  and  it  has  been 
stated  in  England  by  that  character  whose  least  boast  is  his  descent 
from  the  Plantagenets,  I  mean  Lord  Moira  ;  he  offered  to  prove  at  the 
bar  of  the  English  House  of  Lords ;  and  I  hope  he  will  come  here  and 
make  the  same  offer,  facts  within  his  own  knowledge.  Have  you  heard 
of  that  offer  ?  If  you  have  not,  there  is  not  a  man  about  you  but  has. 
Will  you  then  be  warranted  to  say,  on  your  oaths,  that  the  traverser 
printed  this  publication  in  the  malignity  of  his  heart  ?  Have  any  of 
you  travelled  through  the  country  ?  Have  you  observed  the  situation 
of  it  ?  If  you  liave,  and  find  that  the  traverser  has  misrepresented 
every  circumstance,  find  him  guilty. 

Mr.  Fletcher  concluded,  by  requesting  the  jury  to  look  to  the  con- 
duct of  the  English  jurors,  in  the  cases  of  Home  Tooke,  and  Thelwall ; 
where,  though  they  acquitted  them,  after  long  and  heavy  trials,  the 
verdicts  gave  satisfaction.     He  conjured  the  jury  to  weigh  well  the 


PETER  FINERTY.  521 

intention  of  the  traverser  ;  if  they  were  satisfied  that  he  did  publish 
the  letter  in  question ;  and  if,  after  the  evidence  that  would  be  adduced, 
they  should  be  of  opinion  that  the  traverser  did  publish  those  facts 
(most  of  which  Lord  Moira  had  offered  to  verify  at  the  bar  of  the 
English  House  of  Lords)  falsely,  and  with  the  malicious  and  seditious 
purpose  laid  in  the  indictment,  that  then,  and  in  that  case  only,  could 
they  be  warranted  to  find  the  traverser  guilty. 

The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Yelverton. — Examined  by  Mr.  Sampson. 

Q.  I  beg  of  your  lordship  to  look  at  that  writing  (a  paper  produced 
to  his  lordship).     A.  I  believe  the  name  subscribed  to  it  is  mine. 

Q.  Did  not  your  lordship  try  William  Orr  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  your  lordship  transmit  the  recommendation  of  the  jury  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Does  your  lordship  know  how  often  he  was  respited?  A. 
According  to  my  recollection  he  was  respited  twice  ;  three  times,  if  I 
may  mention  the  respite  of  his  execution  at  the  assizes.  You  asked  if 
I  sent  the  recommendation.  I  did  send  it  to  Mr.  Pelham,  and  I  got 
an  answer  that  the  Lord  Lieutenant  was  not  in  town,  and  that  he  had 
no  opportunity  of  consulting  him  ;  and  that  therefore  for  the  present 
he  could  do  no  more  than  recommend  a  respite  for  two  days  ;  in  con- 
sequence of  which  I  respited  the  execution  for  sixteen  days,  in  order 
to  give  time.  After  I  came  to  town,  there  was  another  of  a  few  days 
— (I  believe  from  Monday  to  Thursday)  and  then  a  further  one  of  a 
few  days  more. 

Q.  Does  your  lordship  know  Doctor  M'Cartney's  hand-writing  ? 
A.  I  do  not  believe  I  do  ;  I  never  saw  him  write.  I  know  him,  and 
did  when  in  the  College  ;  but  I  cannot  say  that  I  ever  saw  him  write. 

Q.  Does  your  lordship  know  did  Mr.  M'Cartney  lay  any  affidavit 
before  government  respecting  Wheatly,  the  witness,  against  Mr.  Orr  ? 
A.  I  know  he  did. 

Q.  Does  your  lordship  know  was  it  an  imputation  against  the 
character  of  Wheatly  ? 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — I  object  to  his  lordship  answering  that 
question. 

Lord  Yelverton. — I  would  have  it  understood  that  I  have  no 
objection  to  answer  any  question. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes I  am  decidedly  of  opinion  that  such  evidence 

is  not  admissible. 

Mr.  Sampson Then  your  lordship's  decision  is,  that  we  cannot 

go  into  any  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  publication,  either  for  the 
end  of  justification  or  extenuation. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes I  do ;  I  hold  it  so  expressly.     I  hold  it  to  be 

the  constant  law.  It  is  the  law  of  the  land.  It  has  never  been  a 
doubt ;  it  is  a  question  not  even  admitted  to  debate.  The  question 
was  put  to  the  twelve  judges  while  the  libel  bill  was  in  progress. 
The  question  was,  whether  the  truth  or  falsehood  were  material,  or  to 
be  let  to  go  to  the  jury  on  the  trial  of  a  libel ;  and  to  that  question  it 
was  answered,  that  truth  or  falsehood  is  not  material,  or  to  be  left  to 
a  jury  on  the  trial  of  an  information  or  indictment ;  and  the  opinion 
goes  further  and  says,  we  consider  it  so  firmly  settled  that  it  cannot 
now  be  drawn  into  debate. 


^1 


522  TRIAL  OF 

Mr.  Orr    (for  the  traverser) If   your  lordship  has  not  fully 

determined,  I  trust  I  might  be  able  to  show  your  lordship,  particu- 
larly in  the  case  of  the  seven  bishops,  who  were  charged  with  a  libel 
for  falsely  and  maliciously  denying  the  dispensing  power,  the  court 
permitted  them  to  produce  the  rolls  of  pai'liament  to  shew  they  were 
true. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes I  am  determined  on  the  inadmissibility  of 

the  truth  of  the  fact. 

Mr.  Orr I  do  not  consider  the  decision  of  Holloway  and  Powel 

less  constitutional,  though  they  were  displaced  by  King  James  for 
that  opinion. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — If  it  wanted  anything  to  strengthen  it,  it  is 
to  be  found  in  the  act  of  parliament.  It  has  been  adopted  by  the 
judges  ;  and  they  have  not  thought  fit  to  vary  the  practice. 

Mr.  E.  Cooke,  Chief  Clerk  in  the  Secretary  of  State's  office 

Examined  by  Mr.  M'Nally. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  a  paper  transmitted  to  your  office  by  Lord 
Yelverton,  as  the  recommendation  of  the  jury  that  convicted  Mr. 
Orr  ?     A.  I  do  recollect  it  was  sent. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  if  any  paper  was  brought  to  your  office  re- 
specting the  trial  of  Mr.  Orr,  and  delivered  by  Mr.  Macartney  in 
person  ? 

Mr.  Justice  Downes What  relevancy  does  that  bear  to  the  case  ? 

Mr.  M'Nally To  shew  that  mercy  was  denied. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — I  will  not  suffer  that  evidence  to  be  gone 
into. 

Mr.  M'Nally  (to  Mr.  Cooke) — Do  you  know  whetlier  the  papers 
containing  the  recommendation  of  the  jury  that  convicted  Mr.  Orr 
were  laid  before  the  Lord  Lieutenant  ? 

Mr.  Justice  Downes. — I  will  not  let  that  question  be  answered. 

Mr.  M'Nally  (to  the  jury). — Since  evidence  of  truth  will  not  be 
allowed,  the  jury  will  conclude  that  the  evidence  rejected  is  true. 

Evidence  on  both  sides  closed. 

The  evidence  being  closed,  Mr.  Curran  addressed  the  court  and 
jury  on  the  part  of  the  traverser.  Nevei",  said  he,  did  I  feel  myself 
so  sunk  under  the  importance  of  any  cause  ;  to  speak  to  a  question  of 
this  kind  at  any  time,  would  require  the  greatest  talent  and  the  most 
matured  deliberation ;  but  to  be  obliged,  without  cither  of  these  ad- 
vantages, to  speak  to  a  question  that  hath  so  deeply  shaken  the  feel- 
ings of  this  already  irritated  and  agitated  nation,  is  a  task  that  fills 
me  with  embarrassment  and  dismay.  Neither  my  learned  colleague 
or  myself  received  any  instruction  or  license  until  after  the  jury  were 
actually  sworn,  and  we  both  of  us  came  here,  under  an  idea  that  we 
should  not  take  any  part  in  the  trial.  This  circumstance  I  mention, 
not  as  an  idle  apology  for  an  effort  that  cannot  be  the  subject  of 
either  praise  or  censure,  but  as  a  call  upon  you,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  to  supply  the  defects  of  my  efforts  by  a  double  exertion  of  your 
attention. 

Perhaps  I  ought  to  regret  that  I  cannot  begin  with  any  compliment 
that  may  recommend  me  or  my  client  personally  to  your  favour. 
A  more  artful  advocate  would  probably  begin  his  address  to  you  by 


PETER  FINERTY.  523 

compliments  on  youi-  patriotism,  and  by  felicitating  his  client  upon 
the  happy  selection  of  his  jury,  and  that  unsuspected  impartiality  in 
which,  if  he  was  innocent,  he  must  be  safe.  You  must  be  conscious, 
gentlemen,  that  such  idle  verbiage  as  that  could  not  convey  either 
my  sentiments  or  my  client's  upon  that  subject.  You  know,  and 
we  know,  upon  what  occasion  you  are  come,  and  by  whom  you  have 
been  chosen  ;  you  are  come  to  try  an  accusation  professedly  brought 
forward  by  the  state,  chosen  by  a  sheriff  who  is  appointed  by  our 
accuser. 

(Here  Mr.  Attorney- General  said  the  sheriff  was  elected  by  the 
city,  and  that  that  observation  was  therefore  unfounded.) 

Be  it  so  ;  I  will  not  now  stop  to  inquire  whose  property  the  city 
may  be  considered  to  be,  but  the  learned  gentleman  seems  to  forget 
that  the  election  by  that  city,  to  whosoever  it  may  belong,  is  abso- 
lutely void  without  the  approbation  of  that  very  Lord  Lieutenant, 
who  is  the  prosecutor  in  this  case.  I  do,  therefore,  repeat,  gentlemen, 
that  not  a  man  of  you  has  been  called  to  that  box  by  the  voice  of  my 
client ;  that  he  has  had  no  power  to  object  to  a  single  man  among 
you,  though  the  crown  has,  and  that  you  yourselves  must  feel  under 
what  influence  you  are  chosen,  or  for  what  qualifications  you  are 
particularly  selected.  At  a  moment  when  this  wretched  land  is 
shaken  to  its  centre  by  the  dreadful  conflicts  of  the  different  branches 
of  the  community,  between  those  who  call  themselves  the  partisans  of 
liberty,  and  those  who  call  themselves  the  partisans  of  power  ; 
between  the  advocates  of  infliction  and  the  advocates  of  suffer- 
ing ;  upon  such  a  question  as  the  present,  and  at  such  a  season, 
can  any  man  be  at  a  loss  to  guess  from  what  class  of  character  and 
opinion,  a  friend  to  either  party  would  resort  for  that  jury  which 
was  to  decide  betAveen  both.  I  trust,  gentlemen,  you  know  me  too 
well  to  suppose  that  I  could  be  capable  of  treating  you  with  any  per- 
sonal disrespect ;  I  am  speaking  to  you  in  the  honest  confidence  of 
your  fellow-citizen.  "When  I  allude  to  those  unworthy  imputations 
of  supposed  bias,  or  passion,  or  partiality,  that  may  have  marked  you 
out  for  your  present  situation  ;  I  do  so  in  order  to  warn  you  of  th.e 
ground  on  which  you  stand,  of  the  point  of  awful  responsibility  in 
which  you  are  placed,  to  your  conscience  and  to  your  country ;  and  to 
remind  you  that  if  you  have  been  put  into  that  box  from  any  unworthy 
reliance  on  your  complaisance  or  your  servility,  you  have  it  in  your 
power,  before  you  leave  it,  to  refute  and  to  punish  so  vile  an  expec- 
tation by  the  integrity  of  your  verdict ;  to  remind  you  that  you  have 
it  in  your  power  to  shew  to  as  many  L'ishmen  as  yet  linger  in  their 
country,  that  all  law  and  justice  have  not  taken  their  flight  with  our 
prosperity  and  our  peace  ;  that  the  sanctity  of  an  oath  and  the  honesty 
of  a  juror  are  not  yet  dead  amongst  us ;  and  that  if  our  courts  of  justice 
are  superseded  by  so  many  strange  and  terrible  tribunals,  it  is  not 
because  they  are  deficient  either  in  wisdom  or  virtue. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  necessary  that  you  should  have  a  clear  idea,  first, 
of  the  law  by  which  this  question  is  to  be  decided  ;  secondly,  of  the 
nature  and  object  of  the  prosecution.  As  to  the  first,  it  is  my  duty 
to  inform  you  that  the  law  respecting  libels  has  been  much  changed 
of  late.  Heretofore,  in  consequence  of  some  decisions  of  the  judges  in 
Westminster-hall,  the  jury  was  conceived  to  have  no  province  but 


524  TftlAL  OF 

that  of  finding  the  truth  of"  the  inuendoes  and  the  fact  of  publication  ; 
but  the  libellous  nature  of  that  publication,  as  well  as  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  publication,  were  considered  as  exclusively  belong- 
ing to  the  court.  In  a  system  like  that  of  law,  which  reasons  logically, 
no  one  erroneous  principle  can  be  introduced,  without  producing 
every  other  that  can  be  deducible  from  it.  If,  in  the  premises  of  any 
argument,  you  admit  one  erroneous  proposition,  nothing  but  bad 
reasoning  can  save  the  conclusion  from  falsehood.  So  it  has  been 
with  this  encroachment  of  the  court  upon  the  province  of  the  jury 
with  respect  to  libels.  The  moment  the  court  assumed  as  a  principle 
that  they,  the  court,  were  to  decide  upon  everything  but  the  publi- 
cation ;  that  is,  that  they  were  to  decide  upon  the  question  of  libel  or 
no  libel,  and  upon  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  intention,  which  must 
form  the  essence  of  every  crime ;  the  guilt  or  innocence  must,  of 
necessity,  have  ceased  to  be  material.  You  see,  gentlemen,  clearly 
that  the  question  of  intention  is  a  mere  question  of  fact.  Now,  the 
moment  the  court  determined  that  the  jury  was  not  to  try  that  ques- 
tion, it  followed,  of  necessity,  that  it  was  not  to  be  tried  at  all ;  for  the 
court  cannot  try  a  question  of  fact.  When  the  court  said  that  it  was 
not  triable,  there  was  no  way  of  fortifying  that  extraordinary  propo- 
sition, except  by  asserting  that  it  was  not  material.  The  same 
erroneous  reasoning  carried  them  another  step,  still  more  mischievous 
and  unjust;  if  the  intention  had  been  material,  it  must  have  been 
decided  upon  as  a  mere  fact  under  all  its  circumstances.  Of  these 
circumstances,  the  meanest  understanding  can  see  that  the  leading  one 
must  be  the  truth  or  the  falsehood  of  the  publication ;  but,  having 
decided  the  intention  to  be  immaterial,  it  followed  that  the  truth  must 
be  equally  immaterial;  and,  under  the  law  so  distorted,  any  man  in 
England  who  published  the  most  undeniable  truth,  and  with  the 
purest  intention,  might  be  punished  for  a  crime  in  the  most  igno- 
minious manner,  without  imposing  on  the  prosecutor  the  necessity  of 
proving  his  guilt,  or  getting  any  opportunity  of  shewing  his  inno- 
cence. I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  speaking  of  legal  institutions  with 
disrespect,  but  I  am  warranted  in  condemning  that  usiirpation  upon 
the  rights  of  juries,  by  the  authority  of  that  statute,  by  which  your 
jurisdiction  is  restored.  For  that  restitution  of  justice,  the  British 
subject  is  indebted  to  the  splendid  exertions  of  Mr.  Fox  and  Mr. 
Erskine,  those  distinguished  supporters  of  the  constitution  and  of  the 
law;  and  I  am  happy  to  say  to  you,  that  though  we  can  claim  no  share 
in  the  glory  they  have  so  justly  acquired,  we  have  the  full  benefit  of 
their  success  :  for  you  are  now  sitting  under  a  similar  act,  passed  in 
this  country,  which  makes  it  your  duty  and  your  right  to  decide  upon 
the  entire  question,  upon  its  broadest  grounds,  and  vxnder  all  its 
circumstances ;  and,  of  course,  to  determine,  by  your  verdict,  Avhethcr 
this  publication  be  a  false  and  scandalous  libel ;  false  in  fact,  and 
published  with  the  seditious  purpose  alledged,  of  bringing  the  govern- 
ment into  scandal,  and  instigating  the  people  to  insurrection. 

Having  stated  to  you,  gentlemen,  the  great  and  exclusive  extent  of 
your  jurisdiction,  I  shall  beg  leave  to  suggest  to  you  a  distinction 
that  will  strike  you  at  first  sight ;  and  that  is  the  distinction  between 
public  animadversions  upon  the  character  of  private  individuals,  and 
those  which  are  written  upon  measures  of  government,  and  the  persons 


PETER  PINERTY.  525 

who  conduct  them.  The  former  may  be  called  personal,  and  the 
latter  political  publications.  No  two  things  can  be  more  diiferent  in 
their  nature,  nor  in  the  point  of  view  in  which  they  are  to  be  looked 
on  by  a  jury.  The  criminality  of  a  mere  personal  libel  consists  in 
this,  that  it  tends  to  a  breach  of  the  peace  ;  it  tends  to  all  the  vin- 
dictive paroxysms  of  exasperated  vanity,  or  to  the  deeper  and  more 
deadly  vengeance  of  irritated  pride.  The  truth  is,  few  men  see  at 
once  that  they  cannot  be  hurt  so  much  as  they  think  by  the  mere 
battery  of  a  newspaper.  They  do  not  reflect  that  every  character 
has  a  natural  station,  from  which  it  cannot  be  effectually  degraded, 
and  beyond  which  it  cannot  be  raised  by  the  bawling  of  a  news- 
hawker.  If  it  is  wantonly  aspersed,  it  is  but  for  a  season,  and  that  a 
short  one,  when  it  emerges,  like  the  moon,  from  a  passing  cloud  to  its 
original  brightness.  It  is  right,  however,  that  the  law,  and  that  you 
should  hold  the  strictest  hand  over  this  kind  of  public  animadver- 
sion, that  forces  humility  and  innocence  from  their  retreat  into  the 
glare  of  public  view  ;  that  wounds  and  terrifies,  that  destroys  the 
cordiality  and  the  peace  of  domestic  life,  and  that  without  eradicating 
a  single  vice  or  a  single  folly,  plants  a  thousand  thorns  in  the  human 
heart. 

In  cases  of  that  kind  I  perfectly  agree  with  the  law,  as  stated  from 
the  bench ;  in  such  cases,  I  hesitate  not  to  think,  that  the  truth  of  a 
charge  ought  not  to  justify  its  publication.  If  a  private  man  is 
charged  with  a  crime,  he  ought  to  be  prosecuted  in  a  court  of  justice, 
where  he  may  be  punished  if  it  is  true,  and  the  accuser  if  it  be  false ; 
but  far  differently  do  I  deem  of  the  freedom  of  political  publication. 
The  salutary  restraint  of  the  former  species,  which  I  talked  of,  is 
found  in  the  general  law  of  all  societies  whatever  ;  but  the  more 
enlarged  freedom  of  the  Press,  for  which  I  contend  in  political  publi- 
cation, I  conceive  to  be  founded  in  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  Bi'itish 
constitution,  and  to  follow  directly  from  the  contract  on  which  the 
British  government  hath  been  placed  by  the  Revolution.  By  the 
British  constitution,  the  power  of  the  state  is  a  trust,  committed  by 
the  people,  upon  certain  conditions,  by  the  violation  of  which,  it  may 
be  abdicated  by  those  who  hold,  and  resumed  by  those  who  conferred 
it.  The  real  security,  therefore,  of  the  British  sceptre,  is  the  senti- 
ment and  opinion  of  the  people  ;  and  it  is  consequently  their  duty  to 
observe  the  conduct  of  the  government,  and  it  is  the  privilege  of  every 
man  to  give  them  full  and  just  information  upon  that  important  sub- 
ject. Hence  the  liberty  of  the  Press  is  inseparably  twined  with  the 
liberty  of  the  people.  The  Press  is  the  great  public  monitor ;  its 
duty  is  that  of  the  historian  and  the  witness,  that  "  Nil  falsi  audeat, 
nil  veri  non  audeat  dicere  ;"  that  its  horizon  shall  extend  to  the 
farthest  verge  and  limit  of  truth  ;  that  beyond  that  limit  it  shall  not 
dare  to  pass  ;  that  it  shall  speak  truth  to  the  King,  in  the  hearing  of 
the  people,  and  to  the  people  in  the  hearing  of  the  King :  that  it  shall 
not  perplex  either  the  one  or  the  other  with  false  alarm,  lest  it  lose 
its  chai-acter  for  veracity,  and  become  an  unheeded  warner  of  real 
danger,  lest  it  should  vainly  warn  them  of  that  sin,  of  which  the 
inevitable  consequence  is  death.  This,  gentlemen,  is  the  great  privi- 
lege upon  which  you  are  to  decide  ;  and  I  have  detained  you  the 
longer,  because  of  the  late  change  of  tlie  law,  and  because  of  some 


526  TRIAL   OF 

observations  that  have  been  made,  which  I  shall  find  it  necessary  to 
compare  with  the  principles  I  have  now  laid  down. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  let  us  come  to  the  immediate  subject  of  the 
trial,  as  it  is  brought  before  you  by  the  charge  in  the  indictment,  to 
which  it  ought  to  have  been  confined  ;  and  also,  as  it  is  presented  to 
you  by  the  statement  of  the  learned  counsel,  who  has  taken  a  much 
wider  range  than  the  mere  limits  of  the  accusation,  and  has  en- 
deavoured to  force  upon  your  consideration  extraneous  and  irrelevant 
facts,  for  reasons  which  it  is  my  duty  to  explain.  The  indictment 
states  simply  that  Mr.  Finerty  has  published  a  false  and  scandalous 
libel  upon  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  L*eland,  tending  to  bring  his 
government  into  disrepute,  and  to  alienate  the  affections  of  the  people ; 
and  one  would  have  expected  that,  without  stating  any  other  matter, 
the  counsel  for  the  crown  would  have  gone  directly  to  the  proof  of 
this  allegation ;  but  he  has  not  done  so  ;  he  has  gone  to  a  most  extra- 
ordinary length,  indeed,  of  preliminary  observation,  and  an  allusion 
to  facts,  and  sometimes  an  assertion  of  facts,  at  which,  I  own  I  was 
astonished,  until  I  saw  the  drift  of  these  allusions  and  assertions. 
"Whether  you  have  been  fairly  dealt  with  by  him,  or  are  now  honestly 
dealt  with  by  me,  you  must  be  judges.  He  has  been  pleased  to  say 
that  this  prosecution  is  brought  against  this  letter  signed  "  Marcus," 
merely  as  a  part  of  what  he  calls  a  system  of  attack  upon  government 
by  the  paper  called  the  Press.  As  to  this,  I  will  only  ask  you  whe- 
ther you  are  fairly  dealt  with  ?  Whether  it  is  fair  treatment  to  men 
upon  their  oaths,  to  insinuate  to  them,  that  the  general  character  of 
a  newspaper  (and  that  general  character  founded  merely  upon  the 
assertion  of  the  prosecutor)  is  to  have  any  influence  upon  their  minds, 
when  they  are  to  judge  of  a  particular  publication  ?  I  will  only  ask 
you  what  men  you  must  be  supposed  to  be,  when  it  is  thought  that 
even  in  a  court  of  justice,  and  with  the  eyes  of  the  nation  upon  you, 
you  can  be  tlie  dupes  of  that  trite  and  exploded  expedient,  so  scanda- 
lous of  late  in  this  country,  of  raising  a  vulgar  and  mercenary  cry, 
against  whatever  man,  or  whatever  principle  it  is  thought  necessary 
to  put  down ;  and  I  shall,  therefore,  merely  leave  it  to  your  own  pride 
to  suggest  upon  what  foundation  it  could  be  hoped  that  a  senseless 
clamour  of  that  kind  could  be  echoed  back  by  the  yell  of  a  jury  upon 
their  oaths.  I  trust  you  see  that  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  other  matters  have  been  mentioned,  which 
I  must  repeat  for  the  same  purpose ;  that  of  shewing  you  that  they 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  The  learned  counsel  has  been 
pleased  to  say,  that  he  comes  forwai'd  in  this  prosecution  as  the  real 
advocate  for  the  liberty  of  the  Press,  and  to  protect  a  mild  and  a 
merciful  government  from  its  licentiousness  ;  and  he  has  been  pleased 
to  add,  that  the  constitution  can  never  be  lost  while  its  freedom  re- 
mains, and  that  its  licentiousness  alone  can  destroy  that  freedom.  As 
to  that,  gentlemen,  he  might  as  well  have  said,  that  there  is  only  one 
mortal  disease  of  which  a  man  can  die ;  I  can  die  the  death  inflicted 
by  tyranny ;  and  when  he  comes  forward  to  extinguish  this  paper  in 
the  ruin  of  the  printer  by  a  state  prosecution,  in  order  to  prevent  its 
dying  of  licentiousness,  you  must  judge  how  candidly  he  is  ti*eating 
you,  both  in  the  fact  and  in  the  reasoning.     Ls  it  in  Ireland,  gentlemen. 


PETER  FINEKTY-  527 

that  we  are  told  licentiousness  is  the  only  disease  that  can  be 
mortal  to  the  press  ?  Has  he  heard  of  nothing  else  that  has  been 
fatal  to  the  freedom  of  publication  ?  I  know  not  whether  the  printer 
of  the  Northern  Star  may  have  heard  of  such  things  in  his  captivity, 
but  I  know  that  his  wife  and  his  children  are  well  apprised  that  a 
Press  may  be  destroyed  in  open  day,  not  by  its  own  licentiousness,  but 
by  the  licentiousness  of  a  military  force.  As  to  the  sincerity  of  the 
declaration  that  the  state  has  prosecuted  in  order  to  assert  tlie  free- 
dom of  the  Press  ;  it  starts  a  train  of  thought,  of  melancholy  retro- 
spect, and  direful  prospect,  to  which  I  did  not  think  the  learned 
counsel  would  have  wished  to  commit  your  minds.  It  leads  you 
naturally  to  reflect  at  what  times,  from  what  motives,  and  with  what 
consequences  the  government  has  displayed  its  patriotism,  by  these 
sorts  of  prosecutions.  As  to  the  motives,  does  history  give  you  a 
single  instance  in  which  the  state  has  been  provoked  to  these  conflicts, 
except  by  the  fear  of  truth,  and  by  the  love  of  vengeance  ?  Have 
you  ever  seen  the  rulers  of  any  country  bring  forward  a  prosecution 
from  motives  of  filial  piety,  for  libels  upon  their  departed  ancestors  ? 
Do  you  read  that  Elizabeth  directed  any  of  those  state  prosecutions 
against  the  libels  which  the  divines  of  her  times  had  written  against 
her  Catholic  sister ;  or  against  the  other  libels  which  the  same  gentle- 
men had  written  against  her  Protestant  father  ?  No,  gentlemen,  we 
read  of  no  such  thing ;  but  we  know  she  did  bring  forward  a  prose- 
cution from  motives  of  personal  resentment,  and  we  know  that  a  jury 
was  found  time-serving  and  mean  enough  to  give  a  verdict,  which  she 
was  ashamed  to  carry  into  efiect.  I  said  the  learned  counsel  drew 
you  back  to  the  times  that  have  been  marked  by  these  miserable  con- 
flicts. I  see  you  turn  your  thoughts  to  the  reign  of  the  second  James. 
I  see  you  turn  your  eyes  to  those  pages  of  govei'nniental  abandonment, 
of  popular  degradation,  of  expiring  liberty,  of  merciless  and  sanguin- 
ary persecution,  to  that  miserable  period,  in  which  the  fallen  and 
abject  state  of  man  might  have  been  almost  an  argument  in  the  mouth 
of  the  Atheist  and  the  blasphemer,  against  the  existence  of  an  all-j  ust 
and  an  all- wise  first  cause  ;  if  the  glorious  era  of  the  Revolution  that 
followed  it,  had  not  refuted  the  impious  inference,  by  shewing  that  if 
man  descends,  it  is  not  in  his  own  proper  motion  ;  that  it  is  with 
labour  and  with  pain,  and  that  he  can  continue  to  sink  only  until  by 
the  force  and  pressm-e  of  the  descent,  the  spring  of  his  immortal 
faculties  acquires  that  recuperative  energy  and  efibrt  that  hurries  him 
as  many  miles  aloft — he  sinks  but  to  rise  again.  It  is  at  that  period 
that  the  state  seeks  for  shelter  in  the  destruction  of  the  Press  ;  it  is  in 
a  period  like  that,  that  the  tyrant  prepares  for  the  attack  upon  the 
people  by  destroying  the  liberty  of  the  Press ;  by  taking  away  that 
shield  of  wisdom  and  of  virtue,  behind  which  the  people  are  invulner- 
able ;  in  whose  pure  and  polished  convex,  ere  the  lifted  blow  has 
fallen,  he  beholds  his  own  image,  and  is  turned  into  stone.  It  is  at 
those  periods  that  the  honest  man  dares  not  speak,  because  truth  is 
too  dreadful  to  be  told ;  is  it  then  humanity  has  no  ears,  because 
humanity  has  no  tongue  ?  It  is  then  the  proud  man  scorns  to  speak,  but, 
like  a  physician  baffled  by  the  wayward  excesses  of  a  dying  patient, 
retires  indignantly  from  the  bed  of  an  unhappy  wretch,  whose  ear  is 
too  fastidious  to  bear  the  sound  of  wholesome  advice,  whose  palate  is 


528  TRIAL  OF 

too  debauched  to  bear  the  salutary  bitter  of  the  medicine  that  might 
redeem  him  ;  and  therefore  leaves  him  to  the  felonious  piety  of  the 
slaves  that  talk  to  him  of  life,  and  strip  him  before  he  is  cold. 

I  do  not  care,  gentlemen,  to  exhaust  too  much  of  your  attention  by 
following  this  subject  through  the  last  century  with  much  minuteness; 
but  the  facts  are  too  recent  in  your  mind  not  to  shew  you  that  the 
liberty  of  the  Press  and  the  liberty  of  the  people  sink  and  rise  together  ; 
that  the  liberty  of  speaking  and  the  liberty  of  acting  have  shared 
exactly  the  same  fate.  You  must  have  observed  in  England  that 
their  fate  has  been  the  same  in  the  successive  vicissitudes  of  tlieir  late 
depression ;  and,  sorry  I  am  to  add,  that  this  country  has  exhibited  a 
melancholy  proof  of  their  inseparable  destiny,  through  the  various  and 
further  stages  of  deterioration  down  to  the  period  of  their  final  ex- 
tinction :  when  the  constitution  has  given  place  to  the  sword,  and  the 
only  printer  in  Ireland  who  dares  to  speak  for  the  people,  is  now  in 
the  dock. 

Gentlemen,  the  learned  counsel  has  made  the  real  subject  of  tliis 
prosecution  so  small  a  part  of  his  statement,  and  has  led  you  into  so 
wide  a  range,  certainly  as  necessary  to  the  object,  as  inapplicable  to 
the  subject  of  this  prosecution,  that  I  trust  you  will  think  me  excusable 
in  somewhat  following  his  example.  Glad  am  I  to  find  that  I  have  the 
authority  of  the  same  example,  for  coming  at  last  to  the  subject  of 
this  trial.  I  agree  with  the  learned  counsel,  that  the  charge  made 
against  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland  is  that  of  having  gi'ossly  and 
inhumanly  abused  the  royal  prerogative  of  mercy,  of  which  the  King 
is  only  the  trustee  for  the  benefit  of  the  people.  The  facts  are  not 
controverted.  It  has  been  asserted,  that  their  truth  or  falsehood  is 
indifferent,  and  they  are  shortly  these,  as  they  appear  in  this  publi- 
cation. 

William  Orr  was  indicted  for  having  administered  the  oath  of  an 
United  Irishman.  Every  man  now  knows  what  that  oath  is ;  that  it 
is  simply  an  engagement,  first,  to  promote  a  brotherhood  of  affection 
among  men  of  all  religious  distinctions  ;  secondly,  to  labour  for  the 
attainment  of  a  Parliamentary  Reform  ;  and,  thirdly,  an  obligation  of 
secrecy,  which  was  added  to  it  when  the  Convention  law  made  it  cri- 
minal and  punishable  to  meet  by  any  public  delegation  for  that  purpose. 
After  remaining  upwards  of  a  year  in  gaol,  Mr.  Orr  was  brought  to 
his  trial ;  was  prosecuted  by  the  state  ;  was  sworn  against  by  a  com- 
mon informer  of  the  name  of  Wheatly,  who  himself  had  taken  the 
obligation,  and  was  convicted  under  the  Insurrection  act,  which  makes 
the  administering  such  an  obligation  felony  of  death.  The  jury 
recommended  Mr.  Orr  to  mercy ;  the  judge,  with  an  humanity 
becoming  his  character  transmitted  the  recommendation  to  the  noble 
prosecutor  in  this  case.  Three  of  the  jurors  made  solemn  affidavit 
in  court  that  liquor  had  been  conveyed  into  their  box  ;  that  they 
were  brutally  threatened  by  some  of  their  fellow-jurors  with  capital 
prosecution  if  they  did  not  find  the  prisoner  guilty  ;  and  that  under 
the  impression  of  those  threats,  and  worn  down  by  watching  and 
intoxication,  they  had  given  a  verdict  of  guilty  against  him,  though 
they  believed  him  in  their  conscience  to  be  innocent.  That  further 
enquiries  were  made,  which  ended  in  a  discovery  of  the  infamous  life 
and  character  of  the  informer  ;  that  a  respite  was  therefore  sent  once. 


PETER  FINEKTY.  529 

and  twice,  and  thrice  to  give  time,  as  Mr.  Attorney- General  has 
stated,  for  his  Excellency  to  consider  whether  mercy  could  be  extended 
to  him  or  not ;  and  that  with  a  knowledge  of  all  these  circumstances 
his  Excellency  did  finally  determine  that  mercy  should  not  be  extended 
to  him,  and  that  he  was  accordingly  executed  upon  that  verdict.  Of 
this  publication,  which  the  indictment  charges  to  be  i'alse  and  seditious, 
Mr.  Attorney- General  is  pleased  to  say  that  the  design  of  it  is  to 
bring  the  courts  of  justice  into  contempt.  As  to  this  point  of  fact, 
gentlemen,  I  beg  to  set  you  right. 

To  the  administration  of  justice,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  judges, 
this  publication  has  not  even  an  allusion  in  any  part  mentioned  in  this 
indictment ;  it  relates  to  a  department  of  justice  that  cannot  begin 
until  the  duty  of  the  judge  is  closed.  Sorry  should  I  be,  that  with 
respect  to  this  unfortunate  man,  any  censure  should  be  flung  on  those 
judges  who  presided  at  this  trial,  with  the  mildness  and  temper  that 
became  them  upon  so  awful  an  occasion  as  the  trial  of  life  and  death. 
Sure  am  I,  that  if  they  had  been  charged  with  inhumanity  or  injus- 
tice, and  if  they  had  condescended  at  all  to  prosecute  the  reviler, 
they  would  not  have  come  forward  in  the  face  of  the  public  to  say, 
as  has  been  said  this  day,  that  it  was  immaterial  whether  the  charge 
was  true  or  not.  Sure  I  am,  their  first  object  would  have  been  to 
show  that  it  was  false  ;  and  i*eady  should  I  have  been,  an  eye-witness 
of  the  fact,  to  have  discharged  the  debt  of  ancient  friendship,  of  pri- 
vate respect,  and  of  public  duty,  and,  upon  my  oath,  to  have  repelled 
the  falsehood  of  such  an  imputation.  Upon  this  subject,  gentlemen, 
the  presence  of  those  venerable  judges  restrains  what  I  might  other- 
wise have  said;  nor  should  I  have  named  them  at  all  if  I  had  not 
been  forced  to  do  so,  and  merely  to  undeceive  you  if  you  have  been 
made  to  believe  their  characters  to  have  any  community  of  cause 
whatever  with  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland.  To  him  alone  it  is 
confined,  and  against  him  the  charge  is  made,  as  sti'ongly  I  suppose 
as  the  writer  could  find  words  to  express  it,  that  the  viceroy  of 
Ireland  has  cruelly  abused  the  prerogative  of  royal  mercy,  in  suffering 
a  man  under  such  circumstances  to  perish  like  a  common  malefactor. 
For  this  Mr.  Attorney-General  calls  for  your  conviction  as  a  false 
and  scandalous  libel ;  and  after  stating  himself  every  fact  that  I  have 
repeated  to  you,  either  from  his  statement  or  from  the  evidence,  he 
tells  you  that  you  ought  to  find  it  false  and  scandalous;  though  he 
almost  in  words  admits  that  it  is  not  false,  and  has  resisted  the  admis- 
sion of  the  evidence  by  which  we  offered  to  prove  every  word  of  it 
to  be  true. 

And  here,  gentlemen,  give  me  leave  to  remind  you  of  the  parties 
before  you.  The  traverser  is  a  printer,  who  follows  that  pi'ofession 
for  bread,  and  who  at  a  time  of  great  public  misery  and  terror,  when 
the  people  are  restrained  by  law  from  debating  under  any  delegated 
form  ;  when  the  few  constituents  that  we  have  are  prevented  by  force 
from  meeting  in  their  own  persons,  to  deliberate  or  to  petition  ;  when 
every  other  newspaper  in  Ireland  is  put  down  by  force,  or  purchased 
by  the  administration  (though  here,  gentlemen,  perhaps  I  ought  to 
beg  your  pardon  for  stating  without  authority — I  recollect  when  we 
attempted  to  examine  as  to  the  number  of  newspapers  in  the  pay  of 
the  Castle,  that  the  evidence  was  objected  to) ;  at  a  season  like  this, 

2  M 


530  TRIAL   OF 

Mr.  Finerty  has  had  the  courage,  perhaps  the  folly,  to  print  the  publi- 
cation in  question,  Irom  no  motive  under  heaven  to  malice  or  vengeance, 
but  in  the  mere  duty  which  he  owes  to  his  family  and  to  the  public.  I 
His  prosecutor  is  the  King's  minister  in   Ireland :  in   that   character   ^ 
does  the  learned  gentleman  mean  to  say,  that  his  conduct  is  not  a  fair 
subject  of  public  observation  ?     Where  does  he  find  his  authority  for 
that  in  the  law  or  practice  of  the  sister  country  ?  Have  the  virtues, 
or  the  exalted  station,  or  the  general  love  of  his  people  preserved  the 
sacred  person,  even  of  the  royal  master  of  the  prosecutor,  from  the 
asperity  and  the  intemperance  of  public  censure,  unfounded  as  it  ever 
must  be,  with  any  personal  respect  to  his  Majesty^  injustice,  or  truth? 
Have  the  gigantic  abilities  of  Mr.  Pitt,  have  the  more  gigantic  talents 
of  his  great  antagonist,   Mr.  Fox,  protected  either  of  them  from  the 
insolent  familiarity,  and  for  aught  to  know,  the  injustice  Avith  which 
writers  have  treated  them  ?  What  latitude  of  invective  has  the  King's 
minister  escaped  upon  the  subject  of  the  present  war  ?    Is  there  an 
epithet  of  contumely  or  of  reproach,  that  hatred  or  that  fancy   could 
suggest,  that  are  not  publicly  lavished  upon  him  ?  Do  you  not  find 
the   words,   "advocate   of  despotism,  robber  of  the  public  treasure, 
murderer  of  the  King's  subjects,  debaucher  of  the  public  morality, 
degrader  of  the  constitution,  tarnisher  of  the  British  empire,"   by 
frequency  of  use  lose  all  meaning  whatsoever,  and  dwindle  into  terms, 
not  of  any  peculiar  reproach,  but  of  ordinary  appellation  ?  And  why, 
gentlemen,  is  this  permitted  in  that  country  ?  I  will  tell  you  why  :  be- 
cause in  that  countiy  they  are  yet  wise  enough  to  see,  that  the  measures 
of  the  state  are  the  proper  subjects  for  the  freedom  of  the   Press  ; 
that  the  principles  relating  to  personal  slander  do  not  apply  to  rulers 
or  to  ministers ;  that  to  publish   an   attack  upon  a  public   minister, 
without  any  regard  to  truth,  but  merely  because  of  its  tendency  to  a 
breach  of  the  peace,  would  be   ridiculous  in  the  extreme.     What 
breach  of  the  peace,  gentlemen,  I  pray  you  in  such  a  case  ?  Is  it  the 
tendency  of  such  publications  to  provoke  Mi-.  Pitt  or  Mr.  Dundas  to 
break  the  head  of  the  writer,  if  they  sliould  happen  to  meet  him  ? 
No,  gentlemen,  in  that  country  this  freedom  is  exercised,  because  the 
people  feel  it  to  be  their  right ;  and  it  is  wisely  suffered  to  pass  by 
the  state,  from  a  consciousness  that  it  would  be  vain  to  oppose  it — a 
conciousness  confirmed  by  the  event  of  every  incautious  experiment. 
It  is  suffered  to  pass  from  a  conviction  that  in  a  court  of  justice  at 
least  the  bulwarks  of  the  constitution  will  not  be  svirrendered  to  the 
state ;  and  that  the  intended  victim,  whether  clothed  in  the  humble 
guise  of  honest  industiy,  or  decked  in  the  honours  of  genius,  and 
virtue,  and  philosophy,  whether  an  Hardy  or  a  Tooke,  will  find  cer- 
tain protection  in  the  honesty  and  spirit  of  an  English  jury. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  suppose  Mr.  Attorney  will  scarcely  wish  to  carry 
his  doctrine  altogether  so  far.  Indeed,  I  remember,  he  declared 
himself  a  most  zealous  advocate  for  the  liberty  of  the  Press.  I  may, 
therefore,  even  according  to  him,  presume  to  make  some  observations 
on  the  conduct  of  the  existing  government.  I  should  wish  to  know 
how  far  he  supposes  it  to  extend.  Is  it  to  the  composition  of  lampoons 
and  madrigals,  to  be  sung  down  the  grates  by  ragged  ballad-mongers 
to  kitchen-maids  and  footmen?  I  will  not  suppose  that  he  means  to 
confine   it  to  the  ebullitions  of  Billingsgate,   to  those    cataracts  of 


PETER   FINERTY.  531 

ribaldry  and  scurrility,  that  are  daily  spouting  upon  the  miseries  of 
our  wretched  fellow-suffei-ers,  and  the  unavailing  elForts  of  those  who 
have  vainly  laboured  in  their  cause.  I  will  not  suppose  that  he  con- 
fines it  to  the  poetic  licence  of  a  birth-day  ode — the  Laureat  would 
not  use  such  language — in  which  case  I  do  entirely  agree  with  him, 
that  the  truth  or  the  falsehood  is  as  perfectly  immaterial  to  the  law, 
as  it  is  to  the  Laureat ;  as  perfectly  unrestrained  by  the  law  of  the  land, 
as  it  is  by  any  law  of  decency,  or  shame,  or  modesty,  or  decorum. 
But  as  to  the  privilege  of  censure  or  blame,  I  am  sorry  that  the 
learned  gentleman  has  not  favoured  you  with  his  notion  of  the  liberty 
of  the  Press.  Suppose  an  Irish  viceroy  acts  a  very  little  absurdity. 
May  the  Press  venture  to  be  respectfully  comical  upon  that  absurdity  ? 
The  learned  counsel  does  not  at  least  in  terms  give  a  negative  to  that. 
But  let  me  treat  you  honestly,  and  go  further,  to  a  more  material 
point :  suppose  an  Irish  viceroy  does  an  act  that  brings  scandal 
upon  his  master — that  fills  the  mind  of  a  reasonable  man  with  the 
fear  of  approaching  despotism,  that  leaves  no  hope  to  the  people  of 
preserving  themselves  and  their  children  from  chains,  but  in  common 
confederacy  for  common  safety.  What  is  that  honest  man  in  that 
case  to  do  ?  I  am  sorry  the  right  honourable  advocate  for  the  liberty 
of  the  Press  has  not  told  you  his  opinion,  at  least  in  any  express 
words.  I  will  therefore  venture  to  give  you  my  far  humbler  thought 
upon  the  subject.  I  think  an  honest  man  ought  to  tell  the  people 
frankly  and  boldly  of  their  peril,  and  I  must  say  I  can  imagine  no 
villainy  greater  than  that  of  holding  a  traitorous  silence  at  such  a  crisis 
— except  the  villainy  and  baseness  of  prosecuting  him  ;  or  of  finding 
him  guilty  for  such  an  honest  discharge  of  his  public  duty.  And  I 
found  myself  on  the  known  principle  of  the  Revolution  of  England, 
namely,  that  the  crown  itself  may  be  abdicated  by  certain  abuses  of 
the  trust  reposed,  and  that  there  are  possible  excesses  of  arbitrary 
power,  Avhich  it  is  not  only  the  right  but  the  bounden  duty  of 
every  honest  man  to  resist  at  the  risk  of  his  fortune  and  his  life. 
Now,  gentlemen,  if  this  reasoning  be  admitted,  and  it  cannot  be 
denied — if  there  be  any  possible  event  in  which  the  people  lue 
obliged  to  look  only  to  themselves,  and  are  justified  in  doing  so,  can 
you  be  so  absurd  as  to  say  that  it  is  lawful  to  the  people  to  act 
upon  it  when  it  unfortunately  does  arrive,  but  that  it  is  criminal  in 
any  man  to  tell  them  that  the  miserable  event  has  actually  arrived, 
or  is  imminently  approaching  ?  Far  am  I,  gentlemen,  from  insinu- 
ating that  (extreme  as  it  is)  our  misery  has  been  matured  into  any 
deplorable  crisis  of  this  kind,  from  which  I  pray  that  the  Almighty 
God  may  for  ever  preserve  us.  But  I  am  putting  my  principle  upon 
the  strongest  ground,  and  most  favourable  to  my  opponents,  namely, 
that  it  never  can  be  criminal  to  say  anything  of  the  government  but 
what  is  false,  and  I  put  this  in  the  extreme  in  order  to  demonstrate 
to  you  a  fortiori,  that  the  privilege  of  speaking  tr«th  to  the  people 
which  holds  in  the  last  extremity  must  also  obtain  in  every  stage  of 
inferior  importance ;  and  that,  however,  a  court  may  have  decided 
before  the  late  act,  that  the  truth  was  immaterial  in  case  of  libel,  that 
since  that  act  no  honest  jury  can  be  governed  by  such  a  principle. 

Be  pleased  now,  gentlemen,  to  consider  the  grounds  upon  which 
this  publication  is  called  a  libel,  and  criminal.     Mr.  Attorney  tells 


532  TRIAL    OF 

you,  it  tends  to  excite  sedition  and  insurrection.  Let  me  again 
remind  you,  that  the  truth  of  this  charge  is  not  denied  by  the  noble 
prosecutor.  What  is  it  tlien  that  tends  to  excite  sedition  and  insur- 
rection ?  The  act  that  is  charged  upon  the  prosecutor,  and  is  not 
attempted  to  be  denied.  And,  gracious  God !  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  is  the  public  statement  of  the  King's  representative  this  ?  "I 
have  done  a  deed  that  must  fill  the  mind  of  every  feeling  or  thinking 
man  with  horror  and  indignation,  that  must  alienate  every  man  that 
knows  it,  from  the  King's  government,  and  endanger  the  separation 
of  this  distracted  empire  ;  the  tni.verser  has  had  the  guilt  of  publish- 
ing this  fact,  which  I  myself  acknowledge,  and  I  pray  you  to  find 
him  guilty."  Is  this  the  case  which  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland 
brings  forward  ?  Is  this  the  principle  for  which  he  ventures,  at  a 
dreadful  crisis  like  the  present,  to  contend  in  a  court  of  justice?  Is 
this  the  picture  which  he  wishes  to  hold  out  of  himself  to  the  justice 
and  humanity  of  his  own  covmtrymen  ?  Is  this  the  history  which  he 
wishes  to  be  read  by  the  poor  Irishman  of  the  south  and  of  the 
BOrth,  by  the  sister  nation  and  the  common  enemy  ? 

With  the  profoundest  respect,  permit  me  humbly  to  defend  his 
Excellency,  even  against  his  own  opinion.  The  guilt  of  this 
publication  he  is  pleased  to  think  consists  in  this,  that  it  tends  to 
insurrection.  Upon  what  can  such  a  fear  be  supported  ?  After  the 
multitudes  that  have  perished  in  this  unhappy  nation  within  the  last 
three  yeai*s,  and  which  has  been  borne  with  a  patience  unparalleled 
in  the  story  of  nations,  can  any  man  suppose  that  the  fate  of  a  single 
individual  could  lead  to  resistance  or  insuiTection  ?  But  suppose  that 
it  might,  Avhat  ought  to  be  the  conduct  of  an  honest  man  ?  Should  it 
not  be  to  apprise  the  government  and  the  country  of  the  approaching 
danger  ?  Should  it  not  be  to  say  to  the  viceroy,  you  will  drive  the 
people  to  madness  if  you  persevere  in  such  bloody  councils,  you  will 
alienate  the  Irish  nation,  you  will  distract  the  common  force,  and  you 
will  invite  the  common  enemy.  Should  not  an  honest  man  say  to  the 
people,  the  measure  of  yovir  affliction  is  great,  but  you  need  not  resort 
for  remedy  to  any  desperate  expedients.  If  the  King's  minister  is 
defective  in  humanity  or  wisdom,  his  royal  master,  and  your  beloved 
Sovereign,  is  abounding  in  both  ;  at  such  a  moment  can  you  be  so 
senseless  as  not  to  feel  that  any  one  of  you  ought  to  hold  such  lan- 
guage, or  is  it  possible  you  could  be  so  infatuated  as  to  pvmish  the 
man  who  was  honest  enough  to  hold  it  ?  Or  is  it  possible  that  you 
could  bring  yourselves  to  say  to  your  country,  that  at  such  a  season 
the  Press  ought  to  sleep  upon  its  post ;  or  to  act  like  the  perfidious 
watchman  on  his  round,  that  sees  the  villain  wrenching  the  door,  or  the 
flames  bursting  from  the  windows,  while  the  inhabitant  is  wrapt  in 
sleep,  and  cries  out  that  "  past  five  o'clock,  the  morning  is  fair,  and 
all  well." 

On  this  part  of  the  case  I  shall  only  put  one  question  to  you.  I 
do  not  affect  to  say  it  is  similar  in  all  its  points  ;  I  do  not  affect  to 
compare  the  humble  fortunes  of  Mr.  Orr  with  the  sainted  names  of 
Russell  or  of  Sydney ;  still  less  am  I  willing  to  find  any  likeness 
between  the  present  period  and  the  year  1683.  But  I  will  put  a 
question  to  you,  completely  parallel  in  principle.  When  that 
unhappy  and  misguided  Monai'ch  had  shed  the  sacred  blood  which 


PETER    FINERTY.  533 

their  noble  hearts  had  matured  into  a  fit  cement  of  revolution,  if 
any  honest  Englishman  had  been  brought  to  trial  for  daring  to  pro- 
claim to  the  world  his  abhorrence  of  such  a  deed,  what  would  you 
have  thought  of  the  English  jury  that  could  have  said  —  we  know 
in  our  hearts  that  what  he  said  was  true  and  honest ;  but  we  will  say 
upon  our  oaths  that  it  was  false  and  criminal,  and  we  will  by  that 
base  subserviency,  add  another  item  to  the  catalogue  of  public  wrongs, 
and  another  argument  for  the  necessity  of  an  appeal  to  heaven  for 
redress  ? 

Gentlemen,  I  am  perfectly  aware  that  what  I  say  may  be  easily 
misconstrued,  but  if  you  listen  to  me  with  the  same  fairness  that  I 
address  you,  I  cannot  be  misunderstood.  When  I  show  you  the  full 
extent  of  your  political  rights  and  remedies  ;  when  I  answer  those 
slanderers  of  British  liberty,  which  degrade  the  Monarch  into  a  despot, 
who  degrade  the  steadfastness  of  law  into  the  waywardness  of  will ; 
when  I  show  you  the  inestimable  stores  of  political  wealth  so  dearly 
acquired  by  our  ancestors,  and  so  solemnly  bequeathed  ;  and  when  I 
show  you  how  much  of  that  precious  inheritance  has  yet  survived  all 
the  prodigality  of  their  posterity,  I  am  far  from  saying  that  I  stand 
in  need  of  it  all  ui^on  the  present  occasion.  No,  gentlemen,  far  indeed 
am  I  from  such  a  sentiment.  No  man  more  deeply  than  myself, 
deplores  the  present  melancholy  state  of  our  unhappy  country. 
Neither  does  any  man  more  fervently  wish  for  the  return  of  peace 
and  tranquillity  through  the  natural  channels  of  niei'cy  and  of  justice. 
I  have  seen  too  much  of  force  and  of  violence,  to  hope  much  good 
from  the  continuance  of  them  on  one  side,  or  retaliation  from  another. 
I  have  seen  too  much  of  late  of  political  re-building,  not  to  have 
observed  that  to  demolish  is  not  the  shortest  way  to  repair.  It  is 
with  pain  and  anguish  that  I  should  search  for  the  miserable  right  of 
breaking  ancient  ties,  or  going  in  quest  of  new  relations  or  untried 
adventurers.  No,  gentlemen,  the  case  of  my  client  rests  upon  these 
sad  privileges  of  despair.  I  trust  that  as  to  the  fact,  namely,  the 
intention  of  exciting  insurrection,  you  must  see  it  cannot  be  found  in 
this  publication,  that  it  is  the  mere  idle,  unsupported  imputation  of 
malice,  or  panic,  or  falsehood.  And  that  as  to  the  law,  so  far  has 
he  been  from  transgressing  the  limits  of  the  constitution,  that  whole 
regions  lie  between  him  and  those  limits  which  he  has  not  trod  ;  and 
which,  I  pray  to  heaven,  it  may  never  be  necessary  for  any  of  us  to 
tread. 

Gentlemen,  Mr.  Attorney- General  has  been  pleased  to  open 
another  battery  upon  this  publication,  which  I  do  trust  I  shall  silence, 
unless  I  flatter  myself  too  much  in  supposing  that  hitherto  my  resist- 
ance has  not  been  utterly  unsuccessful.  He  abuses  it  for  the  foul  and 
insolent  familiarity  of  its  address.  I  do  clearly  understand  his  idea  : 
he  considers  the  freedom  of  the  Press  to  be  the  licence  of  offering 
that  paltry  adulation  which  no  man  ought  to  stoop  to  utter  or  to  hear 
— he  supposes  the  freedom  of  the  Press  ought  to  be  like  the  freedom 
of  a  King's  jester,  who,  instead  of  reproving  the  faults  of  which  his 
Majesty  ought  to  be  ashamed,  is  base  and  cunning  enough,  under  the 
mask  of  servile  and  adulatory  censure,  to  stroke  down  and  pamper 
those  vices  of  which  he  is  foolish  enough  to  be  vain.  He  would  not 
have  the  Press  presume  to  tell  the  viceroy  that  the  prerogative  of 


(J34  TRIAL    OF 

mercy  is  a  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  subject,  and  not  a  gaudy  feather 
stuck  into  the  diadem  to  shake  in  the  wind,  and  by  the  waving  of  the 
gaudy  plumage  to  amuse  the  vanity  of  tlie  wearer.  He  would  not 
have  it  say  to  him  that  the  discretion  of  the  crown  as  to  mercy,  is  like 
the  discretion  of  a  court  of  justice  as  to  law;  and  that  in  the  one  case, 
as  well  as  the  other,  wherever  the  propriety  of  the  exercise  of  it 
appears,  it  is  equally  a  matter  of  right.  He  would  have  the  Press 
all  fierceness  to  the  people,  and  all  sycophancy  to  power ;  he  would 
have  it  consider  the  mad  and  phrenetic  depopulations  of  autho- 
rity, like  the  awful  and  inscrutable  dispensations  of  Providence, 
and  say  to  the  unfeeling  and  despotic  spoiler,  in  the  blasphemed 
and  insulted  language  of  religious  resignation — "  the  Lord  hath  given, 
and  the  Lord  hath  taken  away,  blessed  be  the  name  of  the  Lord ! ! ! " 
But  let  me  condense  the  generality  of  the  learned  gentleman's  invec- 
tive into  questions  that  you  can  conceive.  Does  he  mean  that  the  air 
of  this  publication  is  rustic  and  unworthy  ?  Does  he  mean  that  when 
"  Marcus"  presumed  to  ascend  the  steps  of  the  Castle,  and  to  address 
the  vicei'oy,  he  did  not  turn  out  his  toes  as  he  ought  to  have  done  ? — 
but,  gentlemen,  you  are  not  a  jury  of  dancing-masters — or  does  the 
learned  gentleman  mean  that  the  language  is  coarse  and  vulgar  ?  If 
this  be  his  complaint,  my  client  has  but  a  poor  advocate.  I  do  not 
pretend  to  be  a  mighty  grammarian  or  a  formidable  critic  ;  but  I 
would  beg  leave  to  suggest  to  you  in  serious  humility,  that  a  free  Press 
can  be  supported  only  by  the  ardour  of  men  who  feel  the  prompting 
sting  of  real  or  supposed  capacity  ;  who  write  from  the  enthusiasm  of 
virtue,  or  the  ambition  of  pi'aise ;  or  over  whom  if  you  exercise  the 
rigour  of  a  grammatical  censorship,  you  will  inspire  them  with  as 
mean  an  opinion  of  your  integrity  as  your  wisdom,  and  inevitably 
drive  them  from  their  post — and  if  you  do,  rely  upon  it  you  will 
reduce  the  spirit  of  publication,  and  with  it  the  Press  of  this  country, 
to  what  it  for  a  long  interval  has  been,  the  register  of  births,  and  fairs, 
and  funerals,  and  the  general  abuse  of  the  people  and  their  friends. 
But,  gentlemen,  in  order  to  bring  this  charge  of  insolence  and  vul- 
garity to  the  test,  let  me  ask  you  whether  you  know  of  any  language 
which  could  have  adequately  described  the  idea  of  mercy  denied  where 
it  ought  to  have  been  granted,  or  of  any  phrase  vigorous  enough  to 
convey  the  indignation  which  an  honest  man  would  have  felt  upon  such 
a  subject  ?  Let  me  beg  of  you  for  a  moment  to  suppose  that  any  one 
of  you  had  been  the  writer  of  this  very  severe  expostulation  with  the 
viceroy,  and  that  you  had  been  the  witness  of  the  whole  progress  of 
this  never-to-be-forgotten  catastrophe.  Let  me  suppose  that  you  had 
known  the  charge  upon  which  Mi*.  Orr  was  apprehended — the  charge 
of  abjuring  that  bigotry  which  had  torn  and  disgraced  his  country,  of 
pledging  himself  to  restore  the  people  of  his  countiy  to  their  place  in 
the  constitution,  and  of  binding  himself  never  to  be  the  betrayer  of  his 
fellow-labourers  in  that  enterprise  ;  that  you  had  seen  him  upon  that 
charge  removed  from  his  industry,  and  confined  in  a  gaol ;  that  through 
the  slow  and  lingering  progress  of  twelve  tedious  months  you  had  seen 
him  confined  in  a  dungeon,  shut  out  from  the  common  use  of  air  and 
of  his  own  limbs  ;  that  day  after  day  you  had  marked  the  unhappy 
captive,  cheered  by  no  sound  but-  the  cries  of  his  family,  or  the  clink- 
ing of  chains ;  that  you  had  seen  him  at  last  brought  to  his  trial ;  that 


VETER    VINERTY.  535 

you  had  seen  the  vile  and  perjured  informer  deposing  against  his  life; 
that  you  had  seen  the  drunken,  and  worn-out,  and  terrified  jury  give  in 
a  verdict  of  death  ;  that  you  had  seen  the  same  jury,  when  their  return- 
ing sobriety  had  brought  back  their  consciences,  prostrate  themselves 
before  the  humanity  of  the  bench,  and  pray  that  the  mercy  of  the  crown 
might  save  their  characters  from  the  reproach  of  an  involuntary  crime, 
their  consciences  from  the  torture  of  eternal  self-condemnation,  and 
their  souls  from  the  indelible  stain  of  innocent  blood.  Let  me  suppose 
that  you  had  seen  the  respite  given,  and  that  contrite  and  honest  recom- 
mendation transmitted  to  that  seat  where  mercy  was  presumed  to  dwell ; 
that  new,  and  before  unheard-of,  crimes  are  discovered  against  the 
informer  ;  that  the  royal  mercy  seems  to  relent,  and  that  a  new  respite 
is  sent  to  the  prisoner ;  that  time  is  taken,  as  the  learned  counsel  for  the 
crown  has  expressed  it,  to  see  whether  mercy  could  be  extended  or  not ! 
that  after  that  period  of  lingering  deliberation  passed,  a  third  respite  is 
transmitted  ;  that  the  unhappy  captive  himself  feels  the  cheering  hope 
of  being  restored  to  a  family  that  he  had  adored,  to  a  character  that 
he  had  never  stained,  and  to  a  country  that  he  had  ever  loved ;  that 
you  had  seen  his  wife  and  children  upon  their  knees,  giving  those  tears 
to  gratitude  which  their  locked  and  frozen  hearts  could  not  give  to 
anguish  and  despair,  and  imploring  the  blessings  of  eternal  Providence 
upon  his  head  who  had  graciously  spared  the  father,  and  restored  him 
to  his  children  ;  that  you  had  seen  the  olive  branch  sent  into  his  little 
ark,  but  no  sign  that  the  waters  had  subsided.  "  Alas !  nor  wife 
nor  children  more  shall  he  behold  ;  nor  friends  nor  sacred  home  !" 
No  seraph  mercy  unbars  his  dungeon,  and  leads  him  forth  to  light  and 
life,  but  the  minister  of  death  hurries  him  to  the  scene  of  suffering  and 
of  shame ;  where,  unmoved  by  the  hostile  array  of  artillery  and 
armed  men  collected  together,  either  to  secure,  or  to  insult,  or  to 
disturb  him,  he  dies  with  a  solemn  declaration  of  his  innocence,  and 
utters  his  last  breath  in  a  prayer  for  the  liberty  of  his  country.  Let 
me  now  ask  you,  if  any  of  you  had  addressed  the  public  ear  upon  so 
foul  and  monstrous  a  subject,  in  what  language  would  you  have  con- 
veyed the  feelings  of  horror  and  indignation  ?  Would  you  have 
stooped  to  the  meanness  of  qualified  complaint  ? — would  you  have  been 
mean  enough  ?  But  I  entreat  your  forgiveness — I  do  not  think 
meanly  of  you  ;  had  I  thought  so  meanly  of  you,  I  could  not  suffer 
my  mind  to  commune  with  you  as  it  has  done  ;  had  I  thought  you 
that  base  and  vile  instrument,  attuned  by  hope  and  by- fear  into  dis- 
cord and  falsehood,  from  whose  vulgar  string  no  groan  of  suffering 
could  vibrate,  no  voice  of  integrity  or  honour  could  speak ;  let  me 
honestly  tell  you,  I  should  have  scorned  to  fling  my  hand  across  it ;  I 
should  have  left  it  to  a  fitter  minstrel ;  if  I  do  not  therefore  grossly  err 
in  my  opinion  of  you,  I  could  use  no  language  upon  such  a  subject  as 
this,  that  must  not  lag  behind  the  rapidity  of  your  feelings,  and  that 
would  not  disgrace  those  feelings  if  it  attempted  to  describe  them. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  not  unconscious  that  the  learned  counsel  for  the 
crown  seemed  to  address  you  with  a  confidence  of  a  very  different 
kind  ;  he  seemed  to  expect  a  kind  and  respectful  sympathy  from  you 
with  the  feelings  of  the  Castle,  and  the  griefs  of  chided  authority. 
Perhaps,  gentlemen,  he  may  know  you  better  than  I  do  ;  if  he  does, 
he  has  spoken  to  you  as  he  ought ;  he  has  been  I'ight  in  telling  you, 


536  THIAL   OF 

that  if  the  reprobation  of  this  writer  is  weak,  it  is  because  his  genius 
could  not  make  it  stronger  ;  he  has  been  right  in  telling  you  that  his 
language  has  not  been  braided  and  festooned  as  elegantly  as  it  might ; 
that  he  has  not  pinched  the  miserable  plaits  of  his  phraseology,  nor 
placed  his  patches   and  feathers  with  that  correctness  of  millinery 
which  became  so  exalted  a  person.     If  you  agree  with  him,  gentlemen 
of  the  jury — if  you  think  that  the  man  who,  at  the  hazard  of  his  own 
life,  to  rescue  from  the  deep  the  drowned  honour  of  his  country,  must 
not  presume  upon  the  guilty  familiarity  of  plucking  it  up  by  the  locks, 
I  have  no  more  to  say ;  do  a  courteous  thing.     Upright  and  honest 
jurors,  find  a  civil  and  obliging  verdict  against  the  printer!  and  when 
you  have  done  so,  march  through  the  ranks  of  your  fellow-citizens  to 
your  homes,   and   bear  their  looks  as  they  pass   along  ;  retire  to  the 
bosom  of  your  families  and  your  children,  and  when  you  are  presiding 
over  the  morality  of  the  parental  board,  tell  those  infants,  who  are  to 
be  the  future  men  of  Ireland,  the  history  of  this  day.     Form  their 
young  minds  by  your  precepts,  and  confirm  those  precepts  by  your 
own  example  ;  teach  them  how  discreetly  allegiance  may  be  perjured 
on  the  table,  or  loyalty  be  forsworn  in  the  jury-box;  and  when  you 
have  done  so,  tell  them  the  story  of  Orr ;  tell  them  of  his  captivity, 
of  his  children,  of  his  crime,  of  his  hopes,  of  his  disappointments,  of 
his  courage,  and  of  his  death  ;  and  when  you  find  your  little  hearers 
hanging  from  your  lips,  when  you  see  their  eyes  overflow  with  sym- 
pathy and  sorrow,  and  their  young  hearts  bursting  with  the  pangs  of 
anticipated  orphanage,  tell  them  that  you  had  the  boldness  and  the 
justice  to  stigmatise  the  monster — who  had  dared  to  publish  the  trans- 
action !     Gentlemen,  I  believe  I  told  you  before  that  the  conduct  of 
the  viceroy  was  a  small  part  indeed  of  the  subject  of  this  trial.    If  the 
vindication  of  his  mere  personal  character  had  been  as   it  ought  to 
have  been,  the  sole  object  of  this  prosecution,  I  should  have  felt  the 
most  respectful  regret  at  seeing  a  person  of  his  high  consideration 
come  forward  in  a  court  of  public  justice,  in  one  and  the  same  breath 
to  admit  the  truth,  and  to  demand  the  punishment  of  a  publication 
like  the  present ;  to  prevent  the  chance  he  might  have  had  of  such  an 
accusation  being  disbelieved,  and  by  a  prosecution  like  this  to  give  to 
the  passing  stricture  of  a  newspaper  that  life,  and  body,  and  action, 
and  reality  that  proves  it  to  all  mankind,  and  makes  the  record  of  it 
indelible.     Even  as  it  is,  I  do  own  I  feel  the  utmost  concern  that  his 
name  should  have  been  soiled  by  being  mixed  in  a  question  of  which 
it  is  the  mere  pretext  and  scape-goat.     Mr.  Attorney  was  too  wise  to 
state  to  you  the   real  question  or  the  object  which  he  wished  to  be 
answered  by  your  verdict.     Do  you  remember  that  he  was  pleased  to 
say  that  this  publication  was  a  base  and  foul  misrepresentation  of  the 
virtue  and  wisdom  of  the  government,  and  a  false  and  audacious 
statement  to  the  world  that  the  King's  government  in  Ireland  was  base 
enough  to  pay  informers  for  taking  away  the  lives  of  the  people  ? 
When  I  heard  this   statement  to-day  I  doubted  whether  you  were 
aware  of  its  tendency  or  not.     It  is  now  necessary  that  I  should  ex- 
plain it  to  you  more  at  large. 

You  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  great  conflict  between  prerogative 
and  privilege,  which  hath  convulsed  the  country  for  the  last  fifteen 
years.     When  I  say  privilege,  you  cannot  suppose  that  I  mean  the 


PETER    FINERTY.  537 

privileges  of  the  House  of  Commons — I  mean  the  priviliges  of  the 
'people.  You  are  no  strangers  to  the  various  modes  by  Avhich  the 
people  laboured  to  approach  their  object — delegations,  conventions, 
remonstrances,  resolutions,  petitions  to  the  parliament,  petitions  to 
the  throne.  It  might  not  be  decorous  in  this  place  to  state  to  you 
with  any  sharpness  the  various  modes  of  resistance  that  were  employed 
on  the  other  side  ;  but  all  of  you  seem  old  enough  to  remember 
the  variety  of  acts  of  parliament  that  have  been  made,  by  which  the 
people  were  deprived,  session  after  session,  of  what  they  had  supposed 
to  be  the  known  and  established  fundamentals  of  the  constitution — the 
right  of  public  debate,  the  right  of  public  petition,  the  right  of  bail, 
the  right  of  trial,  the  right  of  arms  for  self-defence  ;  until  at  last,  even 
the  relics  of  popular  privilege  became  superseded  by  military  force  ; 
the  Press  extinguished ;  and  the  state  found  its  last  entrenchment  in 
the  grave  of  the  constitution.  As  little  can  you  be  strangers  to  the 
tremendous  confederations  of  himdreds  of  thousands  of  our  coimtry- 
men,  of  the  nature  and  the  objects  of  which  such  a  variety  of  opinions 
have  been  propagated  and  entertained. 

The  writer  of  this  letter  has  presumed  to  censure  the  recall  of  Lord 
Fitzwilliam,  as  well  as  the  measures  of  the  present  viceroy.  Into  this 
subject  I  do  not  enter  ;  but  you  cannot  yourselves  forget  that  the  con- 
ciliatory measures  of  the  former  noble  lord  had  produced  an  almost 
miraculous  unanimity  in  this  countiy  ;  and  much  do  I  regret,  and 
sure  I  am  that  it  is  not  without  pain  you  can  reflect  how  unfortunately 
the  conduct  of  his  successor  has  terminated.  His  intentions  might 
have  been  the  best,  I  neither  know  them  nor  condemn  them,  but  their 
terrible  effects  you  cannot  be  blind  to.  Every  new  act  of  coercion 
has  been  followed  by  some  new  symptom  of  discontent ;  and  every 
new  attack  provoked  some  new  paroxysm  of  resentment,  or  some  new 
combination  of  resistance.  In  this  deplorable  state  of  affairs,  con- 
vulsed and  distracted  within,  and  menaced  by  a  most  formidable 
enemy  from  without,  it  was  thought  that  public  safety  might  be  found 
in  union  and  conciliation,  and  repeated  applications  were  made  to  the 
parliament  of  this  kingdom  for  a  calm  inquiry  into  the  complaints  of 
the  people  ;  these  applications  were  made  in  vain.  Impressed  by  the 
same  motives,  Mr.  Fox  brought  the  same  subject  before  the  Commons 
of  England,  and  ventured  to  ascribe  the  perilous  state  of  Ireland  to 
the  severity  of  its  government.  Even  his  stupendous  abilities,  excited 
by  the  liveliest  sympathy  with  our  sufferings,  and  animated  by  the  most 
ardent  zeal  to  restore  the  strength  with  the  union  of  the  empire,  were 
repeatedly  exerted  without  success.  The  fact  of  discontent  was  denied ; 
the  fact  of  coei'cion  was  denied  ;  and  the  consequence  was,  the  coer- 
cion became  more  implacable,  and  the  discontent  more  threatening  and 
irreconcilable.  A  similar  application  was  made  in  the  beginning  of 
this  session  in  the  Lords  of  Great  Britain  by  our  illustrious  country- 
man— of  whom  I  do  not  wonder  that  my  learned  friend  should  have  ob- 
served how  much  virtue  can  fling  pedigree  into  the  shade,  or  how  much 
the  transient  honour  of  a  body  inherited  from  man  is  obscured  by  the 
lustre  of  an  intellect  derived  from  God.  He,  after  being  an  eye-wit- 
ness of  this  country,  presented  the  miserable  picture  of  what  he  had 
seen  ;  and,  to  the  astonishment  of  every  man  in  Ireland,  the  existence 
of  those  facts  was  ventured  to  be  denied.     The  conduct  of  the  present 


538  TRIAL    OF 

viceroy  was  justified  and  applauded,  and  the  necessity  of  continuing 
tliat  conduct  was  insisted  upon,  as  the  only  means  of  preserving  the 
constitution,  the  peace,  and  the  prosperity  of  Ireland.  The  moment 
the  learned  counsel  had  talked  of  this  publication  as  a  false  statement 
of  the  conduct  of  the  government  and  the  condition  of  the  people,  no 
man  could  be  at  a  loss  to  see  that  that  awful  question  which  had  been 
dismissed  from  the  Commons  of  Ireland  and  from  the  Lords  and  Com- 
mons of  Great  Britain,  is  now  brought  forward  to  be  tried  by  a  side- 
wind, and  in  a  collateral  way  by  a  criminal  prosecution. 

I  tell  you,  therefore,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is  not  with  respect  to 
Mr.  Orr  that  your  verdict  is  now  sought ;  you  are  called  upon  on  your 
oaths  to  say  that  the  government  is  wise  and  merciful,  that  the  people 
are  prosperous  and  happy,  that  military  law  ought  to  be  continued, 
that  the  British  constitution  could  not  with  safety  be  restored  to  this 
country,  and  that  the  statements  of  a  contrary  import  by  your 
advocates  in  either  country  were  libellous  and  false.  I  tell  you  these 
are  the  questions,  and  I  ask  you  can  you  have  the  front  to  give  the 
expected  answer  in  the  face  of  a  community,  who  know  the  country 
as  well  as  you  do.  Let  me  ask  you,  how  you  could  reconcile,  with  such 
a  verdict,  the  gaols,  the  tenders,  the  gibbets,  the  conflagrations,  the 
murdei'S,  the  pi'oclamations  that  we  hear  of  every  day  in  the  streets, 
and  see  every  day  in  the  country  ?  What  are  the  processions  of  the 
learned  counsel  himself,  circuit  after  circuit  ?  Merciful  God  !  what 
is  the  state  of  Ireland,  and  Avhere  shall  you  find  the  wretched  in- 
habitant of  this  land  ?  You  may  find  him,  perhaps,  in  a  gaol,  the 
only  place  of  security,  I  had  almost  said  of  habitation  ;  you  may  see 
him  flying  by  the  conflagrations  of  his  own  dwelling ;  or  you  may 
find  his  bones  bleaching  on  the  green  fields  of  his  country ;  or  he 
may  be  found  tossing  upon  the  surface  of  the  ocean,  and  mingling 
his  groans  with  those  tempests,  less  savage  than  his  persecutors,  that 
drift  him  to  a  returnless  distance  from  his  family  and  his  home.  And 
yet  with  these  facts  ringing  in  the  ears,  and  staring  in  the  face  of  the 
prosecutor,  you  are  called  upon  to  say,  on  your  oaths,  that  these  facts 
do  not  exist.  You  are  called  upon  in  defiance  of  shame,  of  truth, 
of  honour,  to  deny  the  sufferings  under  which  you  groan,  and  to 
flatter  the  persecution  that  tramples  you  under  foot. 

But  the  learned  gentleman  is  further  pleased  to  say,  that  the 
traverser  has  charged  the  government  with  the  encouragement  of  in- 
formers. This,  gentlemen,  is  another  small  fact  that  you  ai'e  to  deny 
at  the  hazard  of  your  souls,  and  upon  the  solemnity  of  your  oaths. 
You  are  upon  your  oaths  to  say  to  the  sister  country  that  the  govern- 
ment of  Ireland  uses  no  such  abominable  instruments  of  destrviction 
as  informers.  Let  me  ask  you,  honestly,  what  do  you  feel  when  in 
my  hearing,  when  in  the  face  of  this  audience  you  are  called  upon  to 
give  a  verdict,  that  every  man  of  us,  and  every  man  of  you,  know 
by  the  testimony  of  your  own  eyes  to  be  utterly  and  absolutely  false  ? 
I  speak  not,  now,  of  the  public  proclamation  for  informers  with  a 
promise  of  secrecy  and  of  extravagant  reward ;  I  speak  not  of  the 
fate  of  those  horrid  wretches  who  have  been  so  often  transferred  from 
the  table  to  the  dock,  and  from  the  dock  to  the  pillory  ;  I  speak  of 
what  your  own  eyes  have  seen  day  after  day  during  the  course  of  this 
commission,  from  the  box  where  you  are  now  sitting ;  the  number  of 


PETER   FINEKTY.  539 

horrid  miscreants  who  avowed  upon  their  oaths,  that  they  had  come 
from  the  very  seat  of  government ; — from  the  Castle,  where  they  had 
been  worked  upon  by  the  fear  of  death  and  the  hopes  of  compensa- 
tion to  give  evidence  against  their  fellows,  that  the  mild  and  whole- 
some councils  of  this  government  are  holden  over  these  catacombs  of 
living  death,  where  the  wretch  that  is  buried  a  man,  lies  till  his 
heart  has  time  to  fester  and  dissolve,  and  is  then  dug  up  as  a  witness. 
Is  this  fancy,  or  is  it  fact  ?  Have  you  not  seen  him  after  his  resur- 
rection from  that  tomb,  after  having  been  dug  out  of  the  region  of 
death  and  corruption,  make  his  appearance  upon  the  table,  the  living 
image  of  life  and  of  death,  and  the  supreme  arbiter  of  both  ?  Have 
you  not  marked,  when  he  entered,  how  the  stormy  wave  of  the  multi- 
tude retired  at  his  approach  ?  Have  you  not  marked  how  the  human 
heart  bowed  to  the  supremacy  of  his  power,  in  the  undissembled 
homage  of  deferential  horror  ?  How  this  glance,  like  the  lightning 
of  heaven,  seemed  to  rive  the  body  of  the  accused,  and  mark  it  for  the 
grave,  while  his  voice  warned  the  devoted  Avretch  of  woe  and  death — 
a  death  which  no  innocence  can  escape,  no  art  elude,  no  force  resist, 
no  antidote  prevent.  There  was  an  antidote — a  juror's  oath — but 
even  that  adamantine  chain  that  bound  the  integrity  of  man  to  the 
throne  of  eternal  justice,  is  solved  and  melted  in  the  breath  that  issues 
from  the  informer's  mouth  ;  conscience  swings  from  her  mooring,  and 
the  appalled  and  affrighted  juror  consults  his  own  safety  in  the  sur- 
render of  the  victim — 

Et  quiB  sibi  quisque  timebat, 

Unius  in  miseri  exitium  conversa  tulere. 

Gentlemen,  I  feel  I  must  have  tired  your  patience,  but  I  have  been 
forced  into  this  length  by  the  prosecutor  who  has  thought  fit  to  intro- 
duce those  extraordinary  topics,  and  to  bring  a  question  of  mere 
politics  to  trial  under  the  form  of  a  criminal  prosecution.  I  cannot 
say  I  am  surprised  that  this  has  been  done,  or  that  you  should  be 
solicited  by  the  same  inducements  and  from  the  same  motives  as  if 
your  verdict  was  a  vote  of  approbation.  I  do  not  wonder  that  the 
government  of  Ireland  should  stand  appalled  at  the  state  to  which 
we  are  reduced.  I  wonder  not  they  should  start  at  the  public  voice, 
and  labour  to  stifle  or  to  contradict  it.  I  wonder  not  that  at  this 
arduous  crisis,  when  the  very  existence  of  the  empire  is  at  stake,  and 
when  its  strongest  and  most  pi-ecious  limb  is  not  girt  with  the  sword 
for  battle,  but  pressed  by  the  tourniquet  for  amputation  ;  when  they 
find  the  coldness  of  death  already  begun  in  those  extremities  where 
it  never  ends,  that  they  are  terrified  at  what  they  have  done,  and 
wish  to  say  to  the  surviving  parties  of  that  empire,  "  they  cannot  say 
that  we  did  it."  I  wonder  not  that  they  should  consider  this  conduct 
as  no  immaterial  question  for  a  court  of  criminal  jurisdiction,  and 
wish  anxiously  as  on  an  inquest  of  blood  for  the  kind  acquittal  of  a 
friendly  jury.  I  wonder  not  they  should  wish  to  close  the  chaos  they 
have  opened  by  flinging  you  into  the  abyss.  But  trust  me,  my  coun- 
trymen, you  might  persist  in  it,  but  you  could  not  close  it ;  trust  me 
if  it  is  yet  possible  to  close  it,  it  can  be  done  only  by  truth  and 
honour — trust  me  that  such  an  effect  could  no  more  be  wrought  by 
the   sacrifice  of  a  jury,  than  by  the  sacrifice  of  Orr.     As  a  state 


540  TRIAL   OF 

measure,  tlie  one  would  be  as  unwise  and  unavailing  as  the  other ;  but 
while  you  are  yet  upon  the  brink,  while  you  are  yet  visible,  let  me, 
before  we  part,  remind  you  once  more  of  your  awful  situation.  The 
law  upon  this  subject  gives  you  supreme  dominion.  Hope  not  for 
much  assistance  from  his  lordship — on  such  occasions  perhaps  the  duty 
of  the  court  is  to  be  cold  and  neutral.  I  cannot  but  admire  the  dignity 
he  has  supported  during  this  trial :  I  am  grateful  for  his  patience. 
But  let  me  tell  you  it  is  not  his  province  to  fan  the  scared  flame  of 
patriotism  in  the  jury-box ;  as  he  has  borne  with  the  little  exti'ava- 
gancies  of  the  law,  do  you  bear  with  the  little  failings  of  the  Press. 
Let  me,  therefore,  remind  you,  that  though  the  day  may  soon  come 
when  our  orders  shall  be  scattered  before  the  winds  of  heaven,  the 
memory  of  what  you  do  cannot  die  ;  it  will  carry  down  to  your  pos- 
terity your  honour  or  your  shame.  In  the  presence  and  in  the  name 
of  that  ever-living  God,  I  do  therefore  conjure  you  to  reflect  that 
you  have  your  characters,  your  consciences ;  that  you  have  also  the 
character,  perhaps  the  ultimate  destiny  of  your  counti'y  in  yovxr  hands. 
In  that  awful  name,  I  do  conjure  you  to  have  mercy  upon  your 
covuitry  and  upon  yourselves,  and  so  to  judge  now,  as  you  will  here- 
after be  judged  ;  and  I  do  now  submit  the  fate  of  my  client,  and  of 
that  country  which  we  yet  have,  in  common,  to  your  disposal. 

Mr.  Prime- Serge  ANT  replied  to  Mr.  Curran.  He  said  it  had 
become  very  difficult  for  him  to  answer  the  two  very  contradictory 
addresses  which  the  counsel  for  the  traverser  had  made  to  the  jury. 
It  did  not  appear  to  him  that  either  of  them  had  attended  to  the  case 
of  their  client,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  seemed  totally  regardless 
of  him.  He  observed  at  some  length  on  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Curran, 
that  the  jury  had  been  collected  by  an  officer  of  the  crown  for  the 
purpose  of  convicting  the  traverser.  He  subscribed  most  heartily  to 
the  panegyric  paid  to  the  honour  and  integrity  every  jury  ought  to 
possess,  and  which  had  been  paid  to  the  jury  then  in  the  box.  He 
said  that  the  duty  of  the  counsel  for  the  traverser  and  the  counsel  for 
the  crown  differed ;  he  ought  to  make  some  excuse  for  the  conduct  of 
the  foi-mer  for  departing  from  the  duty  they  owed  to  their  client,  and 
he  sincerely  hoped  the  public  would  pai'don  them  for  it. 

Mr.  Prime- Sergeant  then  observed  at  length  on  the  libel,  which 
he  read  pai-agraph  by  paragraph.  He  said  many  libellous  attacks 
had  been  made  upon  the  administration  of  justice  in  this  country, 
and  upon  the  government ;  but  it  was  reserved  for  the  traverser  to 
make  a  desperate  attack  upon  the  temple  of  justice,  profaning  its  very 
altars,  and  reviling  its  ministers.  Notwithstanding,  the  traverser  at 
the  bar  stood  indicted  for  having  printed  and  published  the  libel  in 
the  indictment,  he  firmly  believed  that  the  traverser  was  only  an 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  others.  If  it  was  necessary  to  look  for  an 
aggravation  of  the  offence  charged  upon  the  traverser,  it  would  be 
found  in  the  support  given  by  his  counsel,  which  had  consisted  of 
nothing  else  but  the  display  and  pomp  of  language.  Mr.  Prime- 
Sergeant  then  made  a  few  observations  on  the  nature  of  the  offence 
with  which  the  traverser  stood  charged,  and  said  if  the  jury  were  of 
his  opinion,  it  was  both  a  false,  scandalous,  and  seditious  libel,  and 
they  ought  to  find  him  guilty  ;  if,  on  the  contrary,  they  did  not 
believe  that,  then  in  that  case  they  ough   to  find  him  not  guilty. 


PETER    FINERTY.  541 

Mr.  Justice  Downes  charged  the  jury.  He  observed  that  they  had 
been  amused  by  a  display  of  eloqixence  from  the  counsel  for  the 
traverser,  running  wide  of  the  matter  before  them.  He  would, 
however,  endeavour  to  point  out  to  them  the  object  for  their  consider- 
ation, divested  of  all  irrelevant  matter.  His  lordship  then  stated  to 
the  jury  the  libel,  as  it  appeared  on  the  record,  and  said  that  the 
question  which  would  be  for  their  consideration  would  be,  whether 
the  traverser  at  the  bar  was  the  printer  and  publisher  of  the  matter 
called  a  libel,  and  to  find  the  intent  with  which  he  published  it ;  and 
if  the  jury  found  that  the  traverser  had  published  the  paper  called  a 
libel,  they  were  then  to  inquire  whether  the  inuendoes  had  been  well 
laid,  and  properly  applied  in  the  indictment,  and  Avhether  it  bears  the 
construction  imputed  to  it  by  the  inuendoes  ;  and  if  the  jury  were  of 
opinion  that  the  traverser  published  it,  and  that  it  was  a  libel,  and 
that  the  inuendoes  had  been  well  laid  and  properly  applied,  there 
could  be  no  doubt  on  the  whole  of  the  case,  but  that  the  jury  ought 
to  find  the  traverser  guilty. 

It  was  for  the  jury,  his  lordship  said,  to  consider  well  the  evidence, 
and  for  them  also  to  consider  if  it  carried  the  force  of  conviction  to 
their  minds,  and  to  consider  whether  with  the  evidence,  as  connected 
by  Major  Sirr,  (which  his  lordship  repeated,)  they  had  any  rational 
doubt  on  their  minds,  that  the  traverser  was  the  publisher  of  that 
paper,  called  a  libel.  On  this  point  his  lordship  said  he  was  not  to 
give  a  positive  opinion,  but  he  left  it  entirely  to  the  jury,  and  if  they 
were  of  opinion  that  he,  the  traverser,  did  publish  the  letter,  then  their 
duty  was  to  see  if  it  was  a  libel  or  not. 

His  lordship  then  stated  the  act  of  parliament  to  the  jury  for 
securing  the  liberty  of  the  press,  by  which  act  is  left  to  the  jury  the 
final  decision  of  the  question,  whether  the  publication  be  a  libel  or 
not;  and  at  the  same  time  provides  that  the  judge  shall  give  his 
opinion  to  the  jury  whether  it  is  in  his  mind  a  libel. 

The  act  of  parliament  having  given  to  the  judge  this  power,  his 
lordship  said  he  would  state  to  the  jury  his  opinion  upon  the  publica- 
tion, and  it  was  for  them  to  follow  or  reject  that  opinion.  In  the 
execution  of  that  duty  he  would  say  to  them,  that  a  paper  which 
reflects  on  the  administration  of  the  justice  of  the  country,  as  the  paper 
before  them  appeared  to  do ;  that  a  paper  which  leads  to  degrade  the 
administration  of  justice  in  the  eyes  of  the  people,  which,  .in  his  opinion, 
the  paper  before  the  jury  did,  was  a  libel.  If  the  jury  were  of  opinion, 
that  the  publication  called  the  execution  of  a  criminal  in  due  course 
of  law,  murder,  let  the  jury  judge  for  themselves,  if  that  was  not  a 
libel — his  opinion  was  that  such  a  chai'ge  was  a  libel.  Was  not  to 
charge  a  jury,  which  had  brought  in  a  verdict  of  guilty  against  a 
criminal,  with  having  been  beastly  drunk,  a  libel  ?  In  his  opinion  it 
was.  Another  offence  charged  is,  that  if  the  criminal  had  committed 
the  fact  for  which  he  suffered,  it  was  no  crime,  but  a  meritorious  act. 
With  what  view  could  that  paper  have  been  written  ?  If  upon  the 
whole  of  the  evidence  the  jury  believed  that  the  charge  in  the  indict- 
ment states  it  true,  when  it  says  that  the  libel  was  printed  with  a  view 
of  devising,  contriving,  and  falsely,  maliciously,  and  seditiously 
intending,  &c.,  then  the  charge  would  be  fully  established. 

There  had  been  no  evidence  given  to  show  that  the  publication  was 


,542  TRIAL   OF 

innocent.  It  was  not  necessary  for  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  to 
show  another  intent  of  the  printer  and  publisher  than  what  appeared 
on  the  face  of  the  paper  itself;  and  if  the  jury  can  feel  that  the  inten- 
tion of  the  paper  was  to  state  a  false,  seditious,  and  malicious  libel,  it 
would  be  sufficient  to  ground  their  verdict  of  guilty.  His  lordship 
said  he  took  this  to  be  the  established  law. 

His  lordship  said  he  had  rejected  evidence  of  the  truth  to  be  given, 
because  it  had  been  the  established  law  that  the  truth  or  falsehood  of 
a  libel  was  immaterial.  At  the  very  time  the  libel  bill  was  going 
thi'ough  the  House  in  England,  from  which  the  present  bill  is  copied, 
various  questions  were  put  to  the  judges  of  England,  whether  on  a 
trial  on  an  information  or  indictment  for  a  libel,  the  truth  or  falsehood 
was  material.  The  judges  were  of  opinion  that  it  was  not.  This 
opinion  was  grounded  upon  a  very  sound  reason  ;  it  would  be  trying 
a  man  who  was  not  present,  which  would  be  totally  inconsistent  with 
the  spirit  of  justice.  Another  reason  why  his  lordship  would  not 
admit  the  evidence  of  the  truth  was,  the  libel  was  against  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  country ;  and  the  court  in  which  he  sat  had  no  authority, 
and  was  not  competent  to  try  the  conduct  of  government ;  the 
court  of  parliament  was  the  only  court  in  which  that  could  be  brought 
forward. 

His  lordship  then  said  that  if  the  jury  did  believe  that  malice 
dii'ected  the  publication  and  writing  of  that  paper  termed  a  libel,  it 
would  be  for  them  to  consider  whether  they  would  adopt  the  opinion 
he  had  given  them  upon  the  matter  contained  in  it  or  not ;  but  that  if 
they  had  any  rational  doubt  that  the  paper  was  not  published  with  a 
malicious  purpose,  they  ought  to  acquit  him. 

The  jury  retired  for  a  short  time,  and  then  brought  in  a  verdict — 
Guilty. 

COUNSEL  FOR  THE  PROSECUTION. 


Messrs.  Attorney-General, 
Prime-  Sergeant, 
Solicitor-General, 


Messrs.  Ridgeway, 

TowNSEND,  and 

"VVORTHINGTON. 


Agent — Mr.  Kemmis. 


COUNSEL    FOR    THE    TRAVERSER 

Messrs.  Curran, 

Fletcher, 
M'Nally, 

Agent — Mr.  M.  Dowling 


Messrs.  Sampson, 

Sheares,  and 
Orr. 


The  affidavits  mentioned  in  this  trial  to  have  been  made  by  the 
jurors  who  tried  Mr.  Orr,  are  to  be  found  annexed  to  that  gentleman's 
trial. 

Saturday,  December  23. 

This  day,  Mr.  Finerty  was  brought  up  to  receive  sentence.  On 
his  being  put  to  the  bar,  he  addressed  the  judge  as  follows  : — 

My  lord,  from  the  very  able  defence  which  has  been  made  for  me, 
I  should  think  it  utterly  unnecessary  to  trouble  your  lordship  with  any 
observations  of  mine,  if  the  language  of  Mr.  Prime- Sergeant,  in  his 


PETER   FINERTY.  543 

address  to  the  jury,  had  had  not  imperiously  demanded  some  reply. 
It  may  accord  well  with  the  general  system  of  our  government,  to 
inflict  a  severe  punishment  upon  me  ;  but  what  end  it  can  answer,  to 
defame  and  abuse  my  character,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  discover.  Among 
the  epithets  which  the  learned  counsel  so  liberally  dealt  out  against 
me,  he  was  pleased  to  call  me  "  the  tool  of  a  party."  However  humble 
I  may  be,  my  lord,  I  should  spurn  the  idea  of  becoming  the  instru- 
ment of  any  party,  or  any  man — I  was  influenced  solely  by  my  own 
sense  of  the  situation  of  the  country,  and  have  uniformly  acted  from 
that  feeling  of  patriotism,  which  I  hope  it  is  not  yet  considered 
criminal  to  indulge ;  and  I  trust  the  general  conduct  of  the  Press, 
has  fully  evinced  to  the  people,  that  its  object  was  truth  and  the  good 
of  the  nation,  unconnected  with  the  views,  or  unwarped  by  the  pre- 
judices of  any  party. 

If  I  would  stoop,  my  lord,  to  become  the  tool  of  a  party,  I  might 
have  easily  released  myself  from  prosecution  and  reward  ;  and  this 
would  have  been  clearly  illustrated  if  your  lordship  had  suffered  the 
persons  summoned  on  my  trial  to  be  examined. 

I  have  been  now,  my  lord,  eight  weeks  in  confinement,  during 
which  I  have  experienced  the  severest  rigours  of  a  gaol;  the  offence 
was  bailable,  but  it  became  impossible  for  me,  from  the  humility  of 
my  connections,  to  procure  bail  to  the  amount  demanded ;  probably 
had  any  person  stood  forward,  he  would  have  been  mai-ked  ;  and 
sensible  of  that,  I  preferred  imprisonment  to  the  exposure  of  a  friend 
to  danger.  But  not  contented  with  my  imprisonment  and  prosecution, 
it  seemed  the  intention  of  some  of  the  agents  of  government  to  render 
me  infamous.  For  this  purpose,  my  lord,  about  three  weeks  since, 
I  was  taken  fi'om  Newgate,  which  ought  at  least  to  have  been  a  place 
of  security  to  me,  at  seven  o'clock  in  the  evening,  by  what  authority 
of  law  I  know  not,  to  Alderman  Alexander's  ofiice ;  and  it  was  there 
proposed  to  me  to  surrender  the  different  gentlemen  who  had  favoured 
the  Press  with  their  productions,  particularly  the  author  of  "  Marcus." 
Every  artifice  of  hope  and  fear  was  held  ovit  to  me.  After  a  variety 
of  interrogations,  and  after  detaining  me  there  until  two  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  I  was  dispatched  to  Kilmainham  under  an  escort,  where 
being  refused  admittance,  I  was  returned  to  Newgate — from  whence, 
about  eleven  o'clock  on  the  same  day,  I  was  again  taken  to  Alderman 
Alexander's,  where  I  underwent  a  similar  scrutiny,  until  three  o'clock, 
when  the  Alderman  left  me,  as  he  said,  to  go  to  Secretary  Cooke,  to 
know  from  him  how  he  would  wish  to  dispose  of  me,  or  if  he  desired 
to  ask  me  any  questions.  At  eight  in  the  evening,  the  Alderman,  for 
whom  I  was  obliged  to  wait,  was  pleased  to  write  to  one  of  his  ofl5cers 
to  have  me  remanded  to  prison.  In  the  course  of  this  extraordinary 
inquisition,  my  lord,  I  was  threatened  with  a  species  of  punishment, 
to  a  man  educated  as  I  have  been  in  principles  of  virtue,  and  honesty, 
and  manly  pride,  more  terrible  than  death ;  a  punishment,  my  lord, 
which  I  am  too  proud  to  name,  and  which,  were  it  now  to  make  part 
of  my  sentence,  I  fear,  although  I  hope  I  am  no  coward,  I  should 
not  be  able  to  persuade  myself  to  live  to  meet.  By  what  authority 
any  man  could  presume  to  prejudge  your  lordship's  sentence,  or  anti- 
cipate the  verdict  of  a  jury,  it  is  not  for  me  to  decide.  I  cannot 
conceive  what  sort  of  solicitude  these  men  entertain  for  the  dignity 


544  TKIAL  OF 

of  tlie  Irish  character,  or  the  honour  of  the  government,  who  thus 
endeavour  to  stain  it  by  the  multiplication  of  informers.  It  may  be 
answered,  my  lord,  that  informers  ai-e  useful ;  so  is  the  office  of  com- 
mon hangman ;  but  will  any  man  of  common  honesty,  or  common 
sense,  imitate  the  conduct,  or  plead  for  the  character  of  either, 
particularly  in  a  time  when  so  many  instances  of  profligacy  have 
appeai'ed  amongst  the  class  ? 

With  respect  to  the  publication,  my  lord,  which  the  jury  has 
pronotmced  a  libel,  the  language  of  which  is  undoubtedly  in  some 
instances  exceptionable,  it  was  received  in  the  letter-box  by  my  clerk, 
who  generally  went  to  the  office  earlier  than  I,  and  taking  it  to  the 
printing-office,  it  was  instituted,  and  the  whole  impression  of  thei:)aper 
worked  off  before  I  saw  it ;  but  on  remonstrating  with  the  author,  he 
produced  to  me  such  documents  as  put  the  truth  of  the  statement 
beyond  question ;  and  these  documents,  my  lord,  were  yesterday  in 
court,  and  would,  combined  with  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses 
pi'esent,  if  your  lordship  had  permitted  their  examination,  have  amply 
satisfied  the  jury  of  the  facts.  And  hei'etofore,  my  lord,  I  have  been 
taught  to  think  that  truth  was  above  all  things  important ;  and  I  never 
did  believe  it  possible  that  truth  and  falsehood  were  in  any  instance 
equally  guilty,  or  that  the  truth,  though  it  might  not  altogether  acquit, 
would  not  so  much  as  extenuate ;  for  if  it  would  in  any  degree  extenuate 
the  offence,  I  suppose  your  lordship  would  have  thought  it  necessary 
that  it  should  be  heard,  and  I,  of  consequence,  conceived  the  publica- 
tion of  "  Marcus's  "  letter  not  alone  innocent  but  praiseworthy,  even 
though  it  did  contain  passages  which  I  do  not  vindicate  ;  but  your 
lordship's  opinion  and  the  verdict  of  the  jury  teaches  a  different  lesson, 
and  may  serve  to  regulate  my  conduct  in  future. 

I  hope  your  lordship  will  take  the  several  circumstances  I  have 
stated  into  consideration — if  guilt,  my  lord,  consists  in  the  mind,  I 
solemnly  assure  you  that  I  have  examined  my  heart,  and  find  that  it 
perfectly  absolves  me  from  any  criminality  of  intention  ;  I  have  only 
then  to  inform  your  lordship  that  a  heavy  fine  would  be  tantamount 
to  perpetual  imprisonment,  and  long  imprisonment  little  short  of 
death ;  yet  whatever  punishment  you  may  please  to  inflict,  I  trust  I 
have  sufficient  fortitude  arising  from  my  sense  of  religion,  and  of 
the  sacred  cause  for  which  I  suffer,  to  enable  me  to  hear  it  with 
resignation. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes  then  proceeded  to  pass  sentence  upon  the 
prisoner. 

He  told  the  prisoner  he  had  listened  to  him  with  patience,  that 
nothing  had  fallen  from  him  to  induce  a  mitigation  of  punishment, 
except  what  he  had  stated  of  the  length  of  time  he  had  been  in  con- 
finement, which  he  would  not  forget  in  the  sentence ;  as  the  time  of 
the  imprisonment  should  commence  from  tlie  day  of  the  arrest.  That 
with  respect  to  the  libel  having  been  published  without  his  immediate 
knowledge,  if  this  were  an  excuse,  which  it  was  not,  no  evidence  of 
the  fact  had  been  laid  before  the  juiy. 

Mr.  Justice  Downes  then  continued — Sir,  in  scornfully  declaring 
that  guilt  or  infamy  was  attached  to  assisting  the  discovery  of  guilt, 
you  have  affected  a  false  spirit ;  and  you  have  proved  that  the  govern- 
ment would  have  afforded  you  mercy,  which  your  libel  asserted  it  was 


PETER  FINERTY.  545 

not  in  their  nature  to  give.  You  say  tliere  were  documents  which 
would  have  substantiated  the  facts.  It  would  be  monstrous  indeed, 
that  a  printer  should  take  upon  him  to  determine,  what  were  sufficient 
documents  to  justify  his  censure  of  the  government.  The  publication 
is  a  most  atrocious  libel  on  the  administration  of  justice  in  all  its 
branches.  If  the  vei'dict  had  been  as  you  have  stated,  and  that  the 
learned  judge  had  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  the  result  of  perjury 
and  intoxication,  he  would,  fi'om  his  nature,  have  delighted  in  recom- 
mending the  unfortunate  man  as  an  object  of  mercy  ;  and  surely  such 
recommendation  would  have  been  attended  to.  Your  libel  says, 
these  facts  were  true,  and  that  the  Lord  Lieutenant  was  acquainted 
with  them.  It  is  impossible  if  they  were  true,  and  that  they  had 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  chief-governor,  and  that  the  person 
was  a  proper  object  of  mercy,  pardon  would  not  have  followed,  for 
there  is  no  man  whose  heart  is  so  steeled  against  mercy  and  hiunanity, 
as  to  have  refused  it. 

It  also  says,  "  if  Mr.  Orr  was  guilty,  what  was  his  crime  ?  It  was 
administering  an  oath  of  love  and  charity.  If  it  was  an  oath  of 
extermination  he  would  have  found  mercy."  What  ?  Say  that  it  was 
no  crime  the  administering  an  unlawful  oath,  when  from  such  oaths 
the  present  unfortunate  state  of  the  country  springs  ?  It  was  an  oath 
binding  the  taker  to  be  a  member  of  a  society  formed  for  seditious 
purposes,  whose  end  has  on  many  occasions  appeared  in  evidence 
subversive  of  order,  and  promoting  an  attachment  to  the  enemies  of 
the  country.  Your  sentence  is — "  That  you  be  imprisoned  for  two 
years  from  the  day  of  your  arrest ;  that  you  stand  in  the  pillory  for 
one  hour ;  pay  a  fine  of  twenty  pounds,  and  at  the  expiration  of  your 
confinement  give  security,  yourself  in  five  hundred  pounds,  and  two 
sureties  in  two  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  each,  for  your  good  behaviour 
for  seven  years. 

Saturday,  December  30. 

This  day  Mr.  Peter  Finerty,  pursuant  to  his  sentence,  stood  one 
hour  in  the  pillory  opposite  to  the  sessions-house  in  Green-street.  An 
immense  concourse  of  people  attended  this  exhibition.  Mr.  Finerty 
was  accompanied  by  some  most  respectable  citizens.  He  appeared 
contented  and  resigned ;  and  upon  being  released  from  the  restraint 
of  this  governmental  engine  for  securing  the  liberty  of  the  press,  he 
addressed  the  spectators  in  a  few  words — "  My  friends,  you  see  how 
cheerfully  I  can  suffer  ;  I  can  suffer  anything  provided  it  promotes 
the  liberty  of  my  country."  Upon  this  the  spectators  applauded  by 
clapping  of  hands,  the  most  marked  silence  having  prevailed  until 
then.  Some  of  the  guard  who  attended  being,  it  is  supposed,  the  picked- 
men  of  the  Armagh  militia,  attacked  the  unarmed  people.  Some  of 
the  ofiicers  also  were  guilty  of  similar  conduct ;  others,  both  officers 
and  privates,  acted  like  gentlemen  and  soldiers.  Sheriff  Pasley  on 
this  occasion  conducted  himself  with  perfect  propriety.  The  conduct 
of  the  people  was  peaceable  and  exemplary. 


2   N 


I 


REPORT 


OF    THE 


TEIAL   or  PATRICK  FINNEY, 

UPON  AN  INDICTMENT  FOR 

HIGH    TREASON, 

BEFORE  THE 

HON.  JUDGE  CHAMBERLAIN  AND  THE  HON.  BARON  SMITH. 


At  a  Commission  of  Oyer  and  Terminer,  held  in  the  city  of  Dublin, 
in  the  month  of  July,  1797,  an  indictment  was  found  against  the  pri- 
soner, Patrick  Finney,  for  high  ti'eason,  when  counsel  and  agent  were 
assigned.  After  several  adjournments,  he  was  brought  to  trial  on 
Tuesday,  January  16,  1798.  The  indictment  contained  one  count 
for  compassing  the  King's  death,  and  another  for  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies  ;  and  the  overt  acts,  which  were  thirteen,  laid  in  support  of 
each  count  were  the  same.  They  are  stated  fully  in  the  Attorney- 
General's  opening  speech.     The  prisoner  pleaded  not  guilty. 

]Mr.  RiDGEWAY  opened  the  indictment. 

Mr.  Attorney-General, My  lords  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 

the  prisoner  at  the  bar  stands  indicted  before  you  for  high  treason. 
Of  treason,  gentlemen,  there  are  several  species.  He  stands  charged 
v.'itli  two  species  :  one  is  compassing  and  imagining  the  death  of  the 
King ;  the  other  is,  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies — adhering  to  the 
persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in  France,  being  at  war 
with  the  King. 

Gentlemen,  the  first  species,  that  of  compassing  and  imagining  the 
death  of  the  King,  ought  to  be  explained  to  you  ;  that  duty  the  court 
will,  no  doubt,  fully  discharge ;  I  shall,  therefore,  content  myself  with 
briefly  stating,  that  in  order  to  bring  the  charge  home  to  the  prisoner, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  produce  evidence  to  show  that  he  had  it  in  his 
immediate  design  and  contemplation  to  take  away  the  life  of  the 
King.  In  our  law,  any  act  done  that  leads  naturally,  ultimately,  or 
in  its  consequences,  to  destroying  the  royal  life,  is  considered  as  an 
overt  act  to  compass  the  death  of  the  King.  The  preservation  of  the 
life  of  the  King  is  necessary  to  the  tranquillity  of  the  state  :  any 
attack  upon  that  life,  however  indirectly,  has  a  tendency  to  destroy 
that  tranquillity,  and  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  subject  whom 
he  governs.  As,  for  instance,  if  war  be  levied,  though  not  for  the 
purpose  of  destroying  the  life  of  the  King,  it  has  a  tendency  to  destroy 
it ;   because   he   must   resist  that   war,  and  thereby  his  life  will  be 


5 


548  TBIAL    OF 


endangered.  Again,  if  conspirators  invite  tlie  foreign  enemy  to  invade 
the  kingdom,  it  is  settled  law,  that  it  is  a  compassing  the  death  of  the 
King,  because  his  life  must  he  exposed  in  resisting  the  enemy,  if  they 
invade  the  kingdom. 

The  other  charge  is  for  adhering  to  the  King's  enemies.  The  term 
itself  sufficiently  explains  the  nature  of  that  crime.  By  enemies  are 
understood  those  who  are  at  war  with  the  King ;  and  any  adherence  to 
such  persons,  thus  at  war,  constitutes  that  species  of  high  treason. 

Gentlemen,  the  law  of  this  country  makes  it  necessary  that  persons 
charged  with  treason,  the  highest  offiance  that  a  subject  can  commit, 
shall  be  informed  by  the  indictment  of  some  act  or  acts  upon  which 
the  charge  is  founded,  in  order  that  they  may  know  how  to  prepare 
for  their  defence.  The  acts  so  to  be  disclosed  by  the  indictment  are 
called  overt  acts — acts  whieh  are  to  be  plainly  proved  to  you  by  legal 
evidence. 

The  charge  here  is,  that  the  prisoner  compassed  and  imagined  the 
death  of  the  King,  and  adhered  to  the  King's  enemies  ;  but  that  is  not 
enough,  such  is  the  care  taken  of  the  lives  of  the  subjects.  It 
is  not  enough  to  charge  the  offence  generally,  but  the  particular  overt 
act  must  be  set  out,  and  it  must  be  proved  to  enable  the  jury  to  find  a 
verdict  against  the  prisoner,  and  that  he  may  come  prepared  with 
evidence  to  meet  that  fact,  which  is  the  ground  of  the  principal  charge. 

Thus,  gentlemen,  you  perceive  that  to  support  the  charge  against 
the  prisoner,  Ave  must  prove  by  sufficient  evidence  some  one  overt  act 
laid  in  the  indictment.  If  any  one  of  those  overt  acts  be  established, 
you  must  find  a  verdict  against  the  prisoner,  though  we  fail  in  sup- 
porting all  the  others. 

Gentlemen,  in  support  of  this  charge,  there  are  thirteen  overt  acts 
laid  in  the  indictment.  I  shall  briefly  state  them.  The  overt  acts 
laid  are  the  same  in  both  counts  of  the  indictment. 

The  first  overt  act  is,  that  the  prisoner  became  a  member  of  a 
society  formed  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  the  French  in  case  they 
should  invade  this  kingdom,  and  that  he  did  meet  Avith  other  false 
traitors  to  deliberate  upon  the  means  of  effecting  that  purjDOse.  I  will 
not  consume  time  by  minutely  observing  upon  each  overt  act ;  there 
is  no  man  so  dull  as  not  to  understand  this  overt  act :  to  encourage 
the  King's  enemies  to  invade  the  kingdom  is  a  proof  of  adhering  to 
the  King's  enemies. 

The  second  overt  act  is  the  same  in  substance  with  the  first.  The 
third  is,  that  he  consulted  and  agreed  with  others  to  send  one  or  more 
persons  into  France  as  agents,  to  invite  the  persons  exei'cising  the 
powers  of  government  there  to  invade  this  kingdom.  The  fourth  is 
for  collecting  sums  of  money  to  pay  the  agents  who  were  or  should  be 
sent  into  France — to  pay  and  maintain  persons  who  should  be  seduced 
from  his  Majesty's  forces,  and  persons  charged  with  crimes  and  con- 
fined in  prison. 

The  fifth  is,  sending  four  persons  to  France  to  invite  the  French  to 
invade  Ireland,  and  to  aid  them  when  they  should  arrive.  The  sixth 
is  nearly  the  same  with  the  other,  to  raise  money.  The  seventh  is, 
that  the  prisoner  consulted  Avith  others  to  raise  and  levy  war  and 
rebellion  within  the  kingdom.  The  eighth  is,  that  he  met  forty-eight 
persons,  and  consulted  with  them  upon  the  means  of  attacking  the 


PATRICK    FINNEY.  549 

f  . 

'  King's  ordnance  stores  in  the  Gastle  of  Dublin,  and  to  seize  upon  the 
arms  there  deposited ;  and  appointing  certain  persons  to  view  three 
;  particuhxr  phices,  mentioned  in  the  indictment,  adjoining  to  the  ord- 
nance, in  order  to  consider  and  report  where  they  were  proper  phices 
for  making  such  attack.  Gentlemen,  to  state  this  overt  act  is  sulhcient 
to  explain,  that  it  is  evidence  of  treason  in  both  counts — no  words  can 
make  it  stronger.  Men  assemble  together,  and  do  consult,  and  send 
some  of  their  members  to  view  the  stores,  and  to  consider  where  an 
attack  should  be  made  upon  the  stores,  to  enable  the  society  to  seize 
upon  them,  to  make  war  upon  the  King,  and  to  aid  the  French. 

The  ninth  overt  act  is,  that  the  prisoner  did  join  with  others  for 
the  purpose  of  aiding  the  French.  The  tenth  is,  that  he  did  with 
others  meet  and  agree  to  procure  the  French  to  invade  this  kingdom 
with  ships  and  armed  men.  The  eleventh  is,  that  he  did  agree  to 
raise  insurrection,  rebellion,  and  war  within  tlie  kingdom.  The 
•  twelfth  is  much  of  the  same  import ;  and  the  thirteenth  is,  that  he  did 
agree  to  support  the  French  in  case  they  should  invade  the  kingdom. 

You  are  now  apprized  of  the  charges  against  the  prisoner,  and  the 
particular  overt  acts  laid  in  support  of  those  charges,  some  one  of 
which  must  be  clearly  and  satisfactorily  proved  to  induce  you  to  give 
a  verdict  against  him. 

It  is  now  my  duty  to  state  the  facts  and  the  evidence  that  will  be 
adduced  to  support  the  charge,  and  in  doing  so  it  is  my  intention  to 
lay  before  you  purely  the  evidence  stated  to  me,  and  that  without 
exciting  your  feelings  in  any  I'espect  whatsoever — careful  not  to  excite 
yours,  and  anxious,  I  solemnly  assure  you,  to  suppress  mine. 

Gentlemen,  it  will  appear  that  there  did,  last  summer— I  go  no 
further  back — exist  in  this  city  and  kingdom  a  society  styling  itself  a 
society  of  United  Ix'ishmen.  This  society  was  sub-divided  into  an 
indefinite  number  of  societies.  The  members  took  an  oath,  upon  their 
being  admitted  into  any  society,  to  keep  secret,  and  not  to  give 
evidence  against  any  of  their  brethi'en. 

These  societies,  as  they  happened  to  grow  numerous  by  the  admis- 
sion of  members,  divided  themselves  into  what  is  called  "  splits,"  con- 
sisting of  twelve ;  and  each  society  elected  a  treasurer  and  secretary. 
There  were  in  every  barony  and  certain  other  districts  baronial  com- 
mittees, formed  of  the  treasurers  and  secretaries  elected  by  each 
particular  sub-division,  and  of  each  barony  and  district,  and  to  the 
baronial  society  or  committee  the  sub-societies  did  make  reports  of 
their  several  transactions  by  their  respective  treasurers  and  secretaries, 
and  receive  through  their  secretaries  and  treasurers  the  orders  of  the 
baronial ;  from  the  baronial  committees  were  formed  county  com- 
mittees, to  whom  the  bai'onial  committees  made  their  reports,  and  from 
whom  the  baronial  committees  received  orders,  and  from  the  county 
committees  provincial  committees  were  formed,  and  so  by  gradation 
to  a  national  committee. 

If  I  am  rightly  instructed,  it  will  still  appear  that  the  object  of  these 
societies  was,  and  is,  to  subvert  the  constitution ;  and  that  the  means 
intended  to  be  used  to  effect  this  purpose  were,  to  invite  the  French 
nation  to  invade  this,  their  native  country,  to  organize  the  people 
whom  they  should  seduce  to  join  them,  and  to  seize  the  arms  of  his 
Majesty  in  the  stores,  provided  for  the  defence  of  the  kingdom. 


550  TRIAL    OF 

Such  is  the  general  outline  of  this  United  Society.  I  come  to  the  , 
more  minute  particulars  of  the  present  case ;  and  the  facts  which  I  ' 
shall  state  will  appear  throughout  to  be  connected  in  every  step  with  ' 
the  statement  I  have  made  of  the  nature  of  the  society. 

A  man  of  the  name  of  James  O'Brien,  upon  the  25th  of  April, 
1797,  was  passing  through  Thomas-street,  in  this  city;  he  met  a  man 
who  was  his  acquaintance,  named  Hyland,  standing  at  the  door  of  one 
Blake,  who  kept  a  public-house.  Tlie  prisoner  at  the  bar,  then,  as  I 
believe,  a  stranger  to  O'Brien,  was  standing  at  the  door ;  Hyland 
asked  O'Brien  was  he  up  ? — which  is,  I  presume,  a  technical  expression 
to  signify  that  a  man  is  a  member  of  the  society.  They  tried  O'Brien 
by  the  signs,  whether  he  was,  or  not.  They  told  him  that  no  man's 
life  was  safe  if  he  was  not  up  ;  and,  particularly  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  told  O'Brien  his  life  Avould  not  be  safe,  if  he  were  not  up  :  they 
desired  O'Brien  to  go  into  the  house,  in  a  room  of  which  eight  people 
were  sitting.  There,  after  some  discourse,  O'Brien  was  sworn  to 
secrecy,  and  afterwards  he  was  sworn  to  that  oath  which  is  called  the 
oath  of  the  United  Irishmen.  They  talked  much  of  their  strength — 
of  the  number  of  men  and  arms  provided  in  various  parts  of  the 
kingdom,  so  great  as  to  render  the  attainment  of  their  object  certain ; 
and  after  much  other  discourse,  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  state,  they 
adjourned  their  meeting  to  the  house  of  one  Coghran,  in  Newmarket 
on  the  Coombe,  to  be  held  the  next  Sunday,  the  30th  of  April ;  they 
agreed  that  the  pass- word  to  gain  admittance  at  Coghran's  should  be 
"  ]\rr.  Green."  And  it  appears  (for  the  trade  is  attended  with  some 
profit)  that  O'Brien  was  called  upon  to  pay,  and  did  pay  the  prisoner 
one  shilling  for  swearing  him. 

As  soon  as .  O'Brien  left  the  house,  and  escaped  the  danger  he 
imagined  he  was  in,  he  went  to  Mi'.  Higgins,  a  magistrate  of  the 
Queen's  County,  to  whom  he  was  known,  then  in  Dublin,  and  dis- 
closed to  him  what  had  passed.  Mr.  Higgins  told  O'Brien  he  was 
right  to  reveal  the  matter,  and  brought  him  to  Lord  Portarlington, 
who  brought  him  to  one  of  the  committee-rooms  of  the  House  of  , 
Lords,  where  he  was  examined  by  one  of  the  Lord  Lieutenant's  \ 
secretaries.  It  was  thought  expedient,  that  attention  should  be  paid 
to  this  society,  seeing  its  dangerous  tendency,  in  order  to  counteract 
the  designs  entertained.  O'Brien  conceiving  that  he  might  be  in 
some  danger  from  a  society  formed  upon  such  principles,  was  advised 
to  enlist  in  one  of  the  regiments  of  dragoons  then  quartei-ed  in  Dublin, 
and  to  attend  the  society  to  learn  their  designs.  With  this  view, 
O'Brien  attended  at  Coghran's  house,  in  New-market,  and  was 
admitted  upon  giving  the  pass-word,  "  Mr.  Green."  He  there  found 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  with  forty  others  assembled  ;  he  was  desired 
to  pay  sixpence  to  the  funds  of  the  society  ;  he  said  he  had  not  then 
sixpence  ;  they  told  him  he  was  to  return  in  the  evening,  and  that  it 
made  no  diffei-ence,  whether  he  then  paid  or  brought  it  in  the  evening. 
Finney  informed  him  and  the  society  that  the  money  collected  Avas  to 
constitute  a  fund  for  the  purpose  of  the  society ;  that  upon  that  day 
there  was  to  be  a  collection  from  the  united  societies  in  Dublin, 
sixpence  from  each  man,  and  that  there  was  to  be  collected  that  even- 
ing from  the  various  societies,  10,000  sixpences;  and  he  further 
informed  them  (for  he  was  an  active  man  at  that  meeting)  that  there 


PATRICK    FINNEY.  551 

was  to  be  a  great  funeral,  that  of  one  Ryan,  a  mill-wright,  whose 
corpse  lay  at  Pimlico,  which  was  to  be  attended  by  all  the  societies  in 
Dublin ;  that  after  the  funeral,  that  particular  society  was  again  to 

i  assemble  at  the  same  place,  Coghran's. 

I  Gentlemen,  O'Brien  did,  according  to  the  directions  he  received, 
attend  the  funeral  of  Ryan,  at  Pimlico,  and  at  the  funeral  the  prisoner 
was  most  particularly  alert  and  active,  and  marshalled  the  persons 
who  attended  it.  The  witness  will  inform  you  of  their  numbers ; 
they  appeared  to  him  so  great  that  he  (to  use  his  own  expression) 
never  before  saw  the  like.  He  attended  the  funeral  through  several 
streets,  but  apprehending  that  an  attack  would  be  made  by  the  mili- 
tary to  disperse  them,  he  took  the  first  opportunity  to  retreat.  In 
the  evening  he  attended,  he  returned  to  Coghran's  ;  he  had  in  the 
meantime  seen  his  wife,  and  procured  sixpence  from  her,  and  paid  it 
upon  the  table,  upon  which  he  saw  considerable  sums,  gold,  and  silver, 
and  bank  notes.  He  saw  other  members  bring  money  from  the  other 
societies,  and  the  prisoner  was  particularly  active  in  collecting  the 
money  and  in  guiding  the  business  of  the  meeting. 

At  this  meeting,  it  will  appear  that  the  prisoner  openly  read  an 
account  of  arms,  and  money,  and  men,  that  were  provided  by  the 
societies,  and  he  then  informed  the  society  that  the  French  were  to 
land  in  Ireland,  and  were  to  be  joined  or  aided  by  the  societies  ;  some 
other  particulars,  too  minute  to  mention,  and  the  meeting  adjourned 
to  the  7th  of  May,  to  assemble  at  Tuite's,  the  "  Sheaf  of  Wheat,"  in 
Thomas-street,  and  the  pass-Avord  was  to  be  "  Captain  Flail."  O'Brien 
went  to  Tuite's  on  the  7th  of  May,  and  was  admitted  on  giving  the 
pass-word  ;  and  there,  he  will  inform  you,  he  found  the  prisoner 
acting  as  secretary.  There  were  present  sixty  persons — their  number 
was  so  great  that,  according  to  the  policy  of  their  institution,  they 
determined  to  divide  themselves  into  five  splits,  and  they  elected 
treasurers  and  secretaries  for  each — the  prisoner  administered  what  I 
may  call  an  oath  of  office  to  the  persons  so  elected  treasurers  and 
secretaries. 

At  this  particular  meeting  you  will  find  the  prisoner  particularly 
active.  Here,  at  his  desire,  four  members  then  present  were  appointed 
to  examine  three  particular  places  contiguous  to  the  ordnance  stores, 
and  to  see  whether  they  were  places  from  which  an  attack  might 
successfully  be  made  upon  the  stores.  This  meeting  adjourned  to  the 
ensuing  Sunday — for  Sundays  are  the  days  chosen  to  carry  on  this 
blessed  work.  That  particular  split  of  which  O'Brien  was  a  member, 
appointed  to  meet  at  Halfpenny's,  in  Newmarket ;  and  there  that  split 
did  meet  accordingly  upon  the  14th  of  May.  At  that  meeting  reports 
were  made  by  several  members  that  they  had  reviewed  the  three  places 
contiguous  to  the  arsenal,  pointed  out  at  the  meeting  at  Tuite's,  and 
that  they  found  them  proper  places  for  making  the  intended  attack  ; 
and  from  that  meeting  that  particular  split  adjourned  to  meet  at  the 
house  of  one  Archbold  in  Skinner's-alley.  There  they  were  to  meet 
the  ensuing  Sunday,  the  21st  of  May.  Accordingly  they  did  meet 
upon  that  day,  and  there  Finney  was  present :  Halfpenny,  who  was 
one  of  the  officers  of  this  particvilar  split,  read  a  state  of  the  forces 
and  arms.  And  upon  the  next  day,  22d  of  May,  O'Brien,  the  secre- 
tary of  his  split,  and  thereby  privileged  to  attend  the  baronial  meeting, 


552  TRIAL    OF 

was  introduced  by  Finney,  and  did  attend  the  baronial  meeting  in 
King-street.  At  this  baronial  meeting  there  did  attend  forty-four 
members,  delegated  from  the  various  societies  within  the  barony  or 
district  to  which  that  committee  belonged.  There  O'Brien  was 
brought,  and  introduced  by  Finney,  they  having  given  the  pass-word, 
which  was  "  Mr.  Herring."  There  he  was  sworn  into  office,  and 
there  the  secretaries  from  the  various  societies  did  deliver  in  verbally 
an  account  or  statement  of  their  societies  and  of  their  numbers,  and 
Finney  made  an  entry  or  memorandum  of  the  several  reports  tlius 
made  by  the  officers  of  the  sub-societies  to  that  meeting ;  and  to  this 
baronial  committee  sums  of  money  were  brought  and  delivered  to 
the  prisoner  and  a  person  named  Fox.  Much  conversation  passed  at 
this  meeting.  It  will  appear,  as  applicable  to  two  of  the  overt  acts, 
that  Finney  did  declare  the  purpose  for  which  the  money  was  col- 
lected ; — he  did  state  that  four  persons  had  been  sent  into  France 
from  the  society  of  United  Irishmen,  for  the  pui*pose  of  inviting  the 
French  to  invade  this  kingdom — that  two  of  these  persons  had  returned 
— that  the  remaining  two  had  continued  in  France,  in  order  to  attend 
the  French  when  they  should  invade  this  country,  and  that  the  money 
was  collected  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  expenses  of  those  agents, 
thus  stated  by  him  to  have  been  sent  into  France,  and  to  maintain 
the  persons  who  should  desert  from  the  King's  troops,  and  the 
members  of  the  society  imprisoned  under  charges  of  having  committed 
offences  against  the  laws.  He  did  assure  the  persons  surrounding 
him  very  solemnly  of  the  truth  of  his  statement ;  and  in  order  to 
procure  further  credit  to  a  statement  so  important,  he  called  upon 
Fox  to  make  oath  of  the  truth  of  it ;  and  Fox  did  thereupon  swear  to 
the  truth  of  what  Finney  had  informed  them — tliat  emissaries  had 
gone  to  France,  and  that  the  French  were  to  invade  this  kingdom, 
and  that  he  had  this  account  from  another,  who  swore  to  its  truth ; 
and  further,  with  a  view  to  the  attainment  of  this  object,  he  did  state, 
that  two  vessels  had  aiTived  from  France  with  arms,  to  arm  the  people, 
members  of  these  societies. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  stated  that  the  baronial  meetings  are  inferior 
to  the  county  meetings.  It  will  appear  that,  at  this  meeting,  the 
members  present  were  informed,  that  they  would  not  meet  upon  the 
next  Monday,  which  I  suppose  was  generally  the  day  appointed  for 
the  baronial  meeting,  for  that  a  county  meeting  was  to  be  had  upon 
that  day,  and  therefore  the  baronial  meeting  must  stand  over  to 
Tuesday.  Accordingly  they  agi-eed  to  meet  at  the  house  of  Mrs. 
White,  in  Meath-street,  and  the  pass- word  was  "  Mr.  Patrick."  The 
particulars  of  that  meeting  will  come  better  from  the  mouth  of  the 
witness.  It  will  appear  that  some  inquiry  was  made  respecting  the 
place  of  being  supplied  with  constitutions  and  other  papers.  Places 
were  mentioned  where  to  apply,  and  a  person  of  the  name  of  Jackson, 
a  founder  in  Church-street,  was  mentioned,  as  being  furnished  with 
abundance  of  them,  and  that  they  would  be  delivered  there  to  persons 
qualified  to  receive  them.  It  will  appear  that  a  proposition  was  made 
at  this  meeting,  and  debated,  for  assassinating  all  persons  who  should 
give  information  against  members  of  these  societies. 

HoAvever,  before  this  meeting  broke  up,  a  peace-officer,  who  had 
information  through  the  means  of  O'Brien  of  the  meeting  at  this 


PATRICK    FlNNEV.  553 

place,  came  for  the  purpose  of  apprehending  the  conspirators  there 
assembled,  O'Brien  had  communicated  the  pass-word  to  the  mao-is- 
trate.  The  woman  of  the  house,  or  the  waiters,  perceived  the 
approach  of  the  officer  and  those  by  whom  he  was  attended,  and  a 
suspicion  was  entertained  of  the  intention  to  arrest  the  persons  assem- 
bled. The  waiter  came  into  the  room  and  said  there  were  strano-ers 
about  the  place,  and  cautioned  them  to  take  care  of  themselves. 
Finney  called  upon  the  other  members  to  deliver  their  papers  to  him, 
which  they  accordingly  did,  and  he  left  the  room  before  the  officer 
entered,  and  he  had  the  good  fortune  to  escape  with  the  papers.  The 
peace-officer  and  Major  Sirr,  town-major,  arrived  immediately  after, 
and  found  evei-ything  accoixling  to  the  information  which  O'Brien 
had  given.  They  arrested  the  persons  there  assembled.  Finney  had 
escaped ;  but  that  escape  has,  contrary  to  what  he  expected,  tended 
only  fully  to  confii'm  the  account  given  by  O'Brien.  In  a  day  or  two 
after,  Finney  appeared  in  a  public-house  in  which  were  two  soldiers ; 
one,  a  corporal  of  the  Kildare  militia,  of  the  name  of  Thompson, 
the  other  of  the  name  of  Clarke  :  one  of  these  persons  only  survives; 
he  will  give  you  an  account  that  in  their  presence  Finney  boasted  of 
his  cleverness,  or  good  fortune,  in  escaping  from  the  meeting  at  which 
his  companions  were  arrested,  and  that  he  carried  oiF  the  papers. 
One  of  these  men,  Thompson,  immediately  went  to  the  picquet  guard, 
and  brought  them  to  the  house  where  Finney  was,  and  had  him 
arrested ;  thus  from  Finney's  mouth  the  whole  evidence  which  had 
been  given  by  O'Brien  was  confirmed.  Finney  was  arrested  in  the 
month  of  May  last ;  that  he  has  not  been  tried  before  is  not  to  be  imput- 
ed to  the  crown  ;  we  were  ready  to  try  him,  but  he  postponed  his 
trial  from  time  to  time  ;  but  I  will  say  no  more  upon  that  subject. 

We  will  produce  O'Brien,  Major  Sirr,  Lord  Portarlington,  and 
Clarke,  the  soldier  of  the  Kildare  militia.  We  cannot  produce  cor- 
poral Thompson  ;  he  made  his  examination  of  the  facts  I  have  stated ; 
he  cannot  give  evidence  of  facts — he  has  been  since  assassinated ; 
such,  bi'iefly,  is  the  evidence  that  will  be  offered  to  you.  You  have 
an  awful  and  a  sacred  duty  to  discharge  :  yours  is  the  duty  which 
will  decide  upon  that  man's  life  ;  and  the  court  is  engaged  in  the  same 
duty  in  another  respect.  TTe,  even  we,  who  are  in  this  humble  sta- 
tion, I  mean  the  counsel  for  and  against  the  prisoner,  are  engaged  in 
some  degree  in  the  discharge  of  the  same  duty.  It.  is  our  duty,  for 
the  crown,  to  lay  the  case  fairly  and  clearly  before  you.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  to  see  that  the  man  charged  with  this 
atrocious  crime  shall  have  a  fair  trial,  and  if  he  be  innocent,  that  his 
innocence  may  be  made  apparent.  It  is  not  our  duty  or  desire  to 
have  innocent  men  found  guilty  ;  and,  I  am  confident,  it  is  neither 
the  duty  nor  the  wish  of  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner,  if  he  be  guilty, 
that  he  should  escape.  The  counsel  for  the  prisoner  surely  must  have 
the  same  wish  with  ourselves — that,  for  the  safety  of  the  state,  the  guilty 
shall  be  found  guilty;  and  for  the  sake  of  the  prisoner,  if  innocent,  that 
he  should  escape.  It  is  far  from  them  to  wish  that  the  guilty  should 
escape,  as  it  is  from  us,  that  the  innocent  should  be  foimd  guilty. 

You,  gentlemen,  have,  I  say,  a  sacred  duty  to  discharge — you  will 
not  be  led  from  the  faithful  discharge  of  that  duty,  either  by  an  abhor- 
rence of  the  crime,  or  a  tenderness  to  the  criminal.     You  will  do  your 


554  TRIAL    OF 

duty  to  the  state  and  to  the  prisoner.  It  is  of  the  last  consequence 
to  the  kingdom,  and  to  every  individual  protected  by  the  laws,  that  a 
crime  of  this  nature  should  not  go  unpunished ;  your  hearts  will 
inform  you,  that  the  enormity  of  the  crime  ought  not  to  affect  your 
minds  in  considering  the  prisoner's  guilt.  We  Avill  call  our  witnesses, 
and  it  must  be  a  satisfaction  to  every  mind  to  feel,  that  cool  and 
impartial  justice  will  be  administered  between  the  crown  and  the 
px'isoner  upon  this  important  occasion. 

James  O'Brien  sworn. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  25th  of  April  last  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  being  in  Thomas-street  ?  A.  I  do.  Passing 
through  on  the  25th  of  April,  I  met  a  man  of  the  name  of  Hyland  at 
the  door  of  one  Blake,  a  publican. 

Q.  Did  anything  pass,  and  what,  between  you  and  Hyland  ? 
A.  I  had  a  slight  knowledge  with  him  three  months  before,  through 
friends  from  the  same  place.  He  asked  me  did  I  hear  from  the 
country  ? 

Q.  Was  there  any  person  present,  or  in  hearing,  at  the  time 
Hyland  spoke  to  you  ?     A.  There  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  person  of  the  name  of  Patrick  Finney  ?  A.  I 
do ;  I  knew  him  that  day,  and  since. 

Q.  Look  about,  and  say  if  you  see  him  ?  A.  That  is  the  man 
(pointing  to  the  prisoner). 

Q.  Point  him  out  to  the  jury?  A.  That  is  the  man;  he  knows 
me  well. 

Q.  He  was  present,  and  within  hearing,  when  Hyland  spoke  to 
3-0U  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  What  did  Hyland  say  ?  A.  He  made  signs  which  I  came 
afterwards  to  understand. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  after  he  made  the  signs?  A.  "It  is  a 
wonder  you  are  not  up,  James !" 

Q.  Was  that  in  the  hearing  of  Finney  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  What  passed,  or  was  any  observation  made  by  any  person  upon 
that  ?     A.  There  was. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  I  asked  him  the  sense  of  being  up,  for  I  did 
not  understand  it. 

Q.  What  was  said  then  ?  A.  Finney  immediately  told  me,  the 
sense  was  to  become  a  United  Irishman,  or  if  not,  I  might  lose 
my  life  before  I  went  half  a  street. 

Q.  Was  there  any  proposal,  and  what,  then  made  to  you  ?  A.  I 
told  him  I  did  not  understand  him  ;  he  told  me  to  go  into  the  house, 
Blake's,  and  I  should  know  the  particulars. 

Q.  Did  you  go  in  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  but  Finney  in  the  room  into  which  you 
went?  A.  There  was  ;  there  were  ten  when  I  went  in.  There 
were  two  men  I  have  since  come  to  learn  their  names. 

Q.  What  happened  towards  yourself  after  you  went  into  the  room? 
A.  A  man  of  the  name  of  Buckley  asked  Finney — "  Have  you  caught 
a  bird  ?  "  "  Yes,"  said  Finney.  Then,  said  Buckley,  "  He  shall  never 
leave  this  until  I  make  a  Christian  of  him."  Then,  said  he,  "  Do  you, 
Lewis,  mind  that  door,  and  I  will  mind  this." 


PATRICK    FINNEY.  555 

Q.  What  passed  then  ;  was  any  oath  administered  ?    A.  There  was. 

Q.  By  Avhom  ?  A.  Hyland  told  me,  that  I  should  take  an  oath, 
not  to  discover  anything  that  passed,  or  to  give  evidence  against  any 
one  there,  and  then  I  would  be  further  enlightened. 

Q.  Was  there  any  oath  administered  by  the  prisoner  ?  A.  There 
was  afterwards. 

Q.  Who  swore  you  first  to  secrecy  ?     A.  Hyland  did. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  oath  administered  ?     A.  There  was. 

Q.  By  whom  ?  A.  Hyland  laid  the  book  upon  the  table,  and  said, 
turning  to  Finney — "  I  cannot  repeat  the  test  oath  off — if  not,  you 
have  a  printed  one  about  you."  Finney  then  drew  out  a  printed  paper, 
and  Hyland  said — "  Do  you  repeat  after  me,"  and  I  was  sworn. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  purport  of  that  oath  ?  A.  As  nearly  as  I 
recollect,  I  will  tell  it. 

Q.  Do  so.  A.  The  purport  of  the  oath  to  which  he  swore  me,  as 
well  as  I  can  recollect,  was — "  that  I  should  persevere  to  endeavour 
to  form  a  brotherhood  of  affection  among  Irishmen  of  eveiy  religious 
persuasion  ;  and  persevere  to  endeavour  to  gain  a  full,  equal,  and  ade- 
quate representation  of  all  the  people  in  Ireland." 

Q.  Was  there  any  more  ?  A.  There  was  :  "  That  neither  fears, 
hopes,  rewards  or  punishments  should  ever  induce  me  directly  or  in- 
directly to  discover  on,  or  give  evidence  against  him,  them,  or  any 
other  similar  societies  for  any  act  or  expression  of  theirs  done  or 
made  collectively  or  individually,  either  in  or  out  of  this  society." 
That  I  believe  finished  it. 

Q.  After  this,  did  you  get  any  information  with  regard  to  the  signs  ? 
A.  I  was  told  by  the  prisoner  after  the  oath,  that  every  person,  whether 
poor  or  rich,  that  was  not  a  United  Irishman,  would  lose  their  lives. 

Q.  Pray,  now,  O'Brien,  what  was  it  induced  you,  or  did  you  take 
that  oath  voluntarily  or  from  apprehension  ?  A.  He  learned  me  the 
signs,  that  I  might  make  myself  known. 

Q.  Did  you  take  the  oath  voluntarily,  or  from  fear  ?  A.  I  did  it 
from  fear  of  the  words  he  said,  when  he  was  joined  by  every  one  in 
the  room,  and  they  had  got,  one  to  one  door,  another  at  another — 
yourself  might  be  afraid  if  you  were  there. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  any  money  there  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  To  whom  ?  A.  I  paid  a  shilling  to  the  prisoner  ;  he  said  that 
was  the  rule  for  every  man  sworn,  to  subsist  the  cause. 

Q.  Were  there  other  meetings  appointed  ?  A.  There  were  ;  after 
Finney  catechised  me  in  the  signs  and  words — I  shall  mention  them 
if  you  choose  :  he  told  the  challenge  was,  to  drawthe  right  hand  across 
the  left  breast ;  and  the  answer  was,  to  put  the  left  hand  upon  the  right 
wrist,  then  two  words  were  spoken — "  go  on  ;"  and  the  answer  by  the 
opposite  person  was — "  to  what  ?"  the  person  replied — "  to  Truth, 
Union,  and  Liberty  ;"  then  the  right  hand  was  offered  by  one  person, 
and  the  left  given  by  the  other — then  they  shook  hands. 

Q.  After  this,  was  there  any  day  appointed  for  a  future  meeting  ? 
A.  He  said  we  should  meet  to  be  further  enlightened  in  the  business 
at  the  widow  Coghx-an's,  47,  Newmarket  on  the  Coombe,  corner  of 
Fordam's-alley. 

Q.  Pray,  did  you  get  any  token,  or  word,  by  which  to  get  admis- 
sion ?     A.  He  told  me  to  go  at  six  or  seven  in  the  evening,  and  to 


556  TRIAL.  OF 

ask — "  Is  Mr.  Green  here  ?"  and  I  would  be  admitted  to  the  United 
Irishmen,  or  Brothers,  who  were  there. 

Q.  Was  there  any  conversation  about  their  strength,  number,  or 
arms  ?     A.  There  was,  at  Blake's,  in  Thomas-street. 

Q.  When  you  were  sworn  ?  A.  There  was  a  printed  paper,  the 
sense  of  which  was,  that  all  placemen  and  pensioners,  not  United 
Irishmen,  wei'e  to  lose  their  lives. 

Q.  After  this  had  passed  what  did  you  do  on  that  day  ?  A.  After 
it  had  passed,  I  went  home  to  my  own  place  first ;  and  I  could  remem- 
ber through  my  recollection  and  understanding  to  hear  of  people 
being  taken  as  "  Defenders,"  and  in  that  line,  and  I  immediately  set 
my  opinion  that  I  had  better  discover  what  had  happened  to  me. 

Q.  Did  you  discover  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  To  whom  ?  A.  To  Captain  Higgins,  a  magistrate,  who  is 
acquainted  with  me. 

Q.  What  county  gentleman  is  he  ?  A.  Queen's  County, — from 
Mountmellick.  I  went  to  him  at  Mr.  Prendergast's,  where  he  was  ; 
I  do  not  know  what  street,  but  one  leads  into  Golden-lane. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — What  countryman  are  you?  A.  Queen's 
County.) 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Higgins  advise  you  to  do  ?  A.  When  I  apprised 
him  of  the  speeches  ■ 

Q.  (Mr.  M'Nally Was  Mr.  Finney  present  ?     A.  No.) 

Q.  Where  did  Mr.  Higgins  bring  you  ?  A.  He  brought  me  to 
Lord  Portarlington. 

Q.  Were  you  brought  anywhere  afterwards  ?  A.  I  was  not  brought 
anywhere — I  walked  voluntarily. 

Q.  AVhere  did  you  go  to  ?  A.  We  went  to  Lord  Portarlington's 
house,  and  he  went  with  us  to  the  Paidiament-house,  where  I  told 
what  had  passed. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — "Wliat  do  you  mean  by  telling  what  passed  ? 
A.  1  told  him  what  had  happened  at  Thomas-street — my  being  sworn 
in,  and  the  declarations  that  were  made  of  the  placemen  losing  their 
property,  if  they  Avere  not  United  Irishmen.) 

Q.  You  enlisted  in  some  regiment  of  dragoons  afterwards  ?  A.  I 
did,  in  the  9th  regiment  of  dragoons,  for  my  own  protection. 

Q.  With  what  colonel  ?     A.  Colonel  Henniker. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  were  sworn  ?  A.  The  day  after,  because 
I  did  not  know  what  to  do ;  I  recollected  Hanlon's  having  given  in- 
formation against  some  persons,  and  that  he  went  into  the  artillery, 
who  protected  him  ;  and  I  determined  in  my  own  breast  to  enlist,  and 
that  I  would  have  the  protection  of  the  regiment. 

Q.  You  talked  of  an  appointment  for  the  Sunday  after  ?  A.  There 
was.  I  made  known  at  the  Parliament-house  something  of  the  funeral 
and  the  great  meeting,  and  was  asked  whether  there  was  anything  in 
the  coffin  ? — I  said  I  could  not  tell. 

This  examination  was  objected  to  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner. 

Q.  Did  you  go  anywhere  upon  the  Sunday  after  ?     A.  I  did, 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  To   Coghran's,  Newmarket  upon  the  Coombe. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  do  not  know^  that  the  learned  counsel  is  aware 
that  Newmarket  is  in  the  county  of  Dublin  ; — I  understand  that  the 
entire  market  is  in  the  county  of  Dublin.     This  indictment  is  in  the 


PATUICK    FINNEY.  55Y 

city ;  and  it  needs  not  any  information  or  assertion  from  me  to  satisfy 
you,  tliat  until  an  overt  act  be  proved  in  the  city,  you  can  give  no 
evidence  of  wliat  passed  in  tlie  county. 

Mr.  Prime- Sergeant — Tlien  I  will  postpone  for  the  present  what 
passed  in  the  county. 

Q.  You  gave  me  an  account  of  Thomas-street.  Do  you  know  the 
"  Sheaf  of  Wheat  ?  "  A.  I  was  there  the  Sunday  after  I  was  at  New- 
market, Sunday  the  7th  of  May. 

Q.  Was  any  word  given  to  introduce  you  there  ?    A.  "  Mr.  Flail." 

Q.  Now  tell  me  what  passed  there.  A.  I  got  in  upon  the  word 
"  Mr.  Flail." 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  at  that  meeting  ?  I  did  see 
him  at  the  meeting,  and  when  the  meeting  closed. 

Q.  Were  there  many  persons  there  ?  A.  There  were  sixty  men 
in  the  room. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — Whose  house  was  it  ?     A.  Tuite's.) 

Mr.CuRRAN. — I  wish  Mr.  Prime- Sergeant  to  mention  the  particular 
overt  act  to  which  he  applies  this  evidence. 

Mr.  Prime- Serge  ANT That  must  be  done  by  those  who  speak  to 

evidence,  or  by  the  court.  I  produce  the  witness  to  prove  every 
individual  overt  act  in  the  indictment,  and  if  the  statement  be  founded, 
he  will  certainly  prove  them. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Tliere  are  thirteen  overt  acts  in  the  indictment. 
After  the  last  objection  I  made,  the  court  will  see  with  what  view  I 
interfere  now,  and  how  necessary  it  is  we  should  know  what  act  this 
witness  comes  to  prove. 

I\lr.  Prime- Sergeant. — I  declare  that  from  the  informations  I  have 
of  this  man  he  will  prove  them  all.  It  will  be  for  the  court  and  the 
jury  to  apply  to  the  evidence. 

Q.  Was  the  number  of  the  persons  counted  ?     A.  I  counted  them. 

Q.  Did  anybody  else  ?  A.  Finney,  and  Tom  Cooke  a  yeoman, 
who  is  not  here. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  upon  that  ?  A.  It  was  advised  between 
them  both  that  there  being  too  many  they  should  be  divided  into 
splits. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — Who  proposed  it  ?  A.  Finney,  as  secretary 
of  the  meeting,  and  Cooke,  as  chairman  or  president. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  Finney  was  secretary  of  the  meeting  ?  A.  He 
was  secretary,  my  lord.) 

Q.  You  said  they  were  divided  ?  A.  There  was  a  sheet  of  paper 
got  in,  and  number  one  to  sixty  jjut  in  it,  and  it  was  cut  up  in  pieces 
and  thrown  into  a  hat,  and  every  one  drew,  and  each  man  was  to 
follow  the  split  of  twelve  that  he  was  to  draw. 

Q.  What  number  did  you  draw  ?     A.  I  drew  thirty-eight. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — I  suppose  there  were  sixty  tickets  put  into  the 
hat  ?  A.  There  were  ;  that  was  to  determine  what  split  a  man  should 
belong  to  ;  he  was  to  fall  into  whatever  twelve  he  should  draw.) 

Q.  Was  there  any  oiRcer  elected  for  each  split  ?  A.  There  was  j 
there  was  a  room  hard  by  into  which  every  twelve  went  until  they 
elected  a  secretaiy  and  cash-keeper,  which  left  ten  members. 

Q.  (By  the  Court Did  they  go  into  the  room  ?     A.  I  went  in 

with  my  own  split. 


558  TRIAL    OF 

Q.  Did  they  go  in  in  the  order  of  their  numbers  ?  A.  I  do  not 
know  of  any  but  my  own  split ;  I  cannot  tell  what  passed  while  others 
were  there.) 

Q.  Did  you  elect  a  secretary  and  cash-keeper  ?     A.  We  did. 
Q.  What  was  done  after  that  ?     A.  We  came  into  the  large  room 
all  together. 

Q.  The  whole  sixty  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  happened  there  ?  A.  The  secretaries  that  were  elected 
were  ordered  to  attend  their  meetings,  and  have  candle-light  near  the 
door,  that  if  a  stranger  came  they  might  know  him,  lest  any  one 
should  impose  himself  upon  their  meeting. 

Q.  After  the  election  of  secretaries  and  cash-keei^ers,  was  there  any 
oath  administered,  and  by  whom  ?  A.  The  five  secretaries  and  five 
cash-keepers  were  ordered  to  sit  near  the  chair,  by  the  prisoner ;  the 
five  secretaries  were  sworn  to  the  secretary's  oath,  and  the  five  cash- 
keepei's  to  the  treasurer's  oath. 

Q.  (By  the  Court By  whom  ?     A.  By  Finney  and  Cooke,  who 

afterwards  raised  a  glass  of  punch  and  said — "  wash  it  down  with 
this.") 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  oath  ?  A.  I  believe  I  can,  a  part  of  both : — 
"  that  as  long  as  he  held  the  ofiUce  of  secretary,  he  would  not  give  any 
papers,  copies,  or  documents  to  any  man  not  part  of  the  split." 

Q.  What  was  the  oath  of  the  cash-keeper  ?  A.  "  That  he  should 
not  embezzle  or  put  astray  any  of  the  cash  given  him  in  charge,  but 
to  make  a  just  return  to  the  baronial  meeting." 

Q.  After  all  this  had  passed,  swearing  and  washing  down,  do  you 
recollect  any  conversation  about  White's-court  ?  A.  I  do  very  well. 
Q.  What  was  it ;  tell  the  court  and  the  jury  ?  A.  Cooke  struck 
the  table  with  a  carpenter's  rule  he  had,  and  called  to  order — every 
man  to  keep  silence.  When  every  man  kept  silence,  "  gentlemen,' 
said  he,  "  I  have  one  thing  to  disclose,  with  your  leave,"  tui-ning  to 
Finney — Finney  said,  "  there  was  time  enough  " — so  Cooke  said,  "  it 
must  be  disclosed  now — you  must  all  go,"  said  he,  "  as  you  know  your 
respective  times  of  meeting,  to  White's-court,  in  Ship-street ;  to  No. 
48,  George's-street,  and  the  stone-cutter's  yard  in  the  same  street, 
round  from  Stephen-street." 

Q.  Was  it  told  for  what  purpose  ?  A.  The  business  was  introduced 
in  the  purpose  of  viewing  these  places,  to  see  how  tliey  could  get  into 
the  back  of  the  ordnance  stores,  to  rob  it  of  arms  and  stores,  ball 
and  powder,  without  loss  of  blood,  as  they  did  not  like  to  face  the 
guards. 

Q.  Who  said  this  ?     A.  Both  Finney  and  Cooke. 
Q.  Was  there  any  objection  made  to  that  proposal  ?     A.  None  that 
I  heard. 

Q.  Was  it  agreed  to  ?  A.  Every  man  was  asked  to  put  out  his 
hand,  which  he  did. 

Q.  Was   it   appointed   that    you   should   meet   again  ?      A.  The 
secretary  and  cash-keeper  of  the  split  I  was  allotted  in,  said  we  were 
to  meet  at  Halfpenny's,  at  New-market  on  the  Coombe. 
"Q.  For  what  time  ?     A.  The  Sunday  after. 

Q.  (By  the  Court What  was  his  Cliristian  name  ?     A.  Ignatius  : 

he  was  our  secretary. 


PATRICK    FINNEY.  559 

Q.  Secretary  of  your  split  ?     A.  Yes,  my  lord.) 

Q.  You  met  them  ?  A.  I  went  to  Halfpenny's  the  Sunday  after, 
and  I  would  not  be  let  in  without  the  word. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — Was  there  any  signal?  A.  The  pass-word 
was  "  did  the  wool-pack  pass  by,"  they  being  mostly  broad  weavers.) 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — Are  you  going  to  give  evidence  of  what  passed  at 
Halfpenny's  ? 

Mr.   Prime- Sergeant. — I  am. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — My  lords,  as  to  the  law  there  is  not  the  least  doubt. 
It  is  cleai'ly  settled,  that  unless  an  overt  act  be  proved  in  the  county 
where  the  indictment  is  laid,  the  prosecutor  cannot  go  into  evidence 
in  a  foreign  county.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  that :  we  have  the 
books  in  the  court,  and  can  read  passages  to  that  effect.  The  only 
doubt  is  with  regard  to  the  application  of  the  rule  here.  I  am  to 
contend,  that  there  is  not  evidence  for  a  jury  of  any  overt  act  of 
high  treason  in  the  city.  There  cannot  be  evidence  of  an  overt  act, 
unless  the  evidence,  if  believed,  would  be  sufficient  to  convict. 
What  is  the  evidence  here  ?  He  has  stated  a  meeting,  and  a  proposal 
to  see  whether  there  might  not  be  a  robbery  committed  upon  his 
Majesty's  stores,  without  bloodshed,  and  without  opposing  his  Majesty's 
forces. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — We  will  give  an  opinion,  if  forced 
to  it;  but  after  the  statement  of  the  counsel  for  the  crown,  they  can 
be  under  no  difficulty  in  going  further,  and  postpone  this  part  for  the 
present. 

Mr.  SoLiciTOR-GrENERAL — In  Lord  Preston's  case,  the  only  act 
proved  was  taking  boat  at  Surrey-stairs,  and  that  let  in  evidence  of 
what  passed  in  Middlesex. 

Mr.  Baron  Smith — We  have  so  much  in  prospect  that  the  less 
time  there  is  wasted  in  argument  the  better. 

Mr.  Prime- Serge  ANT. — I  shall  go  to  another  overt  act. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  being  at  Skinner's- Alley,  at  one  Archbold's  ? 
A.  I  do  very  well,  the  Sunday  after. 

[Here  it  was  objected  that  Skinner's-alley  was  also  in  the 
county.] 

Q.  Do  you  know  North  King-street  ?     A.  I  was  there. 

Q.  Was  Finney  there  ?     A.  He  was  the  man  brought  me  there 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  how  soon  after  you  left  Archbold's  ?  A.  It 
was  the  Monday  evening  following.  He  scolded  the  secretary  and 
cash-keeper  there  for  admitting  me,  without  administering  an  oath 
to  me  upon  my  election. 

Q.  Was  any  account  returned  ?  A.  There  was.  Finney  swore 
me  to  the  cash-keeper's  oath,  and  one  Hyland  to  the  secretary's. 

Q.  Tell  what  was  done  ?  A.  After  I  was  sworn,  every  secretary 
and  cash-keeper  should  answer  according  to  their  number,  beginning  at 
twenty-one.  The  secretary  was  asked  the  number  of  men,  and  Finney 
made  an  entry  in  the  book  of  the  cash  and  the  numbers  ;  and  when  a 
member  swore  in  a  man,  he  was  to  give  an  account  what  he  belonged 
to,  and  the  number  of  men 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — What  number  of  men  ?  A.  The  number  of 
men  that  each  secretary  and  cash-keeper  had  under  them,  for  this 
was  a  baronial  meeting.) 


560  TRIAL    OF 

Q.  This  was  a  baronial  meeting  ?  A.  It  was — of  secretaries  and 
casli-keepers. 

Q.  There  was  an  account  given  of  each  and  the  number  of  men  ? 
A.  There  was,  and  of  arms. 

Q.  Wlio  received  the  cash  at  the  meeting  ?     A.  Finney  did. 

Q.  Was  there  any  and  what  conversation,  with  regard  to  the  pur- 
pose for  which  the  money  was  I'eceived,  and  by  whom  ?  A.  Thex'e 
was. 

Q  By  whom,  and  what  was  it  ?  A.  There  were  forty-five  men  in 
the  room,  secretaries  and  cash-keepers — every  two  men  answering 
one  number.  Finney  was  asked  the  purpose  to  which  tlie  cash  was 
to  be  applied.  He  answered,  to  i>ay  the  men,  as  they  had  done  before, 
to  go  to  France. 

Q.  For  what  purpose  ?  A.  For  the  purpose  of  letting  the  men  in 
France  know  the  state  of  the  men  in  Ireland,  and  of  their  intention 
to  join  them  at  their  landing. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — There  was  a  return  of  men  and  arms,  did 
you  say,  at  that  baronial  meeting  ?  A.  There  was  a  return  of  cash 
by  each  cash-keeper,  which  was  paid  over  to  Finney,  and  thei'e  was 
a  return  of  men  and  arms.) 

Q.  "What  further  did  he  say  about  the  persons  being  sent  into 
France  ?  A.  He  told  me  that  he  got  information  that  day — he  told 
the  whole  meeting  as  well  as  me — that  two  of  the  four,  who  were 
last  sent  into  France,  had  come  back,  and  that  the  French  would 
certainly  come  again,  and  that  the  other  two  remained  to  come  with 
the  fleet. 

Q.  Was  there  any  county  meeting  mentioned  that  day  ?  A. 
There  was. 

Q.  Who  mentioned  it  ?  A.  Finney  did.  He  told  us,  they  could 
not  meet  on  the  Monday,  but  might  on  Tuesday,  as  he  was  obliged  to 
attend  a  county  meeting. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — Were  the  baronial  meetings  on  Monday  ? 
A.  The  one  I  sat  in  was  upon  Mondays,  another  met  upon  Tuesdays.) 

Q.  Was  there  one  Fox  at  that  meeting  ?     A.  There  was. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  in  the  presence  of  Finney  ?  A.  Finney 
had  mentioned  the  use  of  the  money,  for  deserters,  and  persons  in 
gaol,  and  the  return  of  the  two  persons  from  France ;  and  then  he 
called  upon  Fox,  and  asked  him  if  it  was  not  true.  Fox  took  a  book 
out  of  his  pocket,  and  swore  it  was  true,  as  it  was  sworn  to  him  by 
another  man  the  same  day. 

Q.  AVas  there  any  further  meeting  appointed  ?     A.  There  was. 

Q.  For  what  day  and  place  ?     A.  Tuesday  eight  days. 

Q.  What  place  ?  A.  Mrs.  White's,  44,  Meath-street,  and  the 
pass-word  was  to  be,  "  is  Mr.  Patrick  here."  She  kept  the  sign  of 
St.  Patrick,  and  it  was  thought  the  members  would  not  forget  the 
word,  when  they  looked  at  the  sign. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  else  to  have  been  said  by  Fox  in  the 
hearing  of  Finney  ?  A.  That  every  person  wanting  constitutions  or 
returns  was  to  call  at  Fox's  place,  1 8,  or  1 9,  Hammond-lane,  and  he 
woidd  supply  them. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  call  upon  Fox  in  consequence  of  that  ?     A  I  did. 

Q.  Tell  what  passed  ?     A.  I  went  up  stairs  to  where  he  lived  : 


fATRICK.   FINNEY.  56 1 

he  brought  me  to  a  back  yard,  and  from  a  hole  in  the  wall  he  took  out 
papers,  which  he  showed  me,  that  I  might  give  a  copy  of  it. 

Mr.  M'Nally — I  hope  the  counsel  for  the  crown  do  not  mean  to 
give  parol  evidence  of  these  papers. 

Witness — I  took  the  paper,  and  had  it  till  Cooke  took  it  from 
me. 

Q.  He  gave  you  a  return  and  a  constitution  ?  A.  He  gave  me  a 
return,  and  the  constitution  was  somewhat  blotted,  and  I  asked  for 
another  ;  he  said  he  had  not  another  till  we  should  go  to  Jackson's, 
in  Church-street.  We  went  there,  and  saw  a  tall  man  in  brown 
clothes,  with  a  black  sallow  complexion.  He  gave  Fox  twelve,  and 
he  gave  me  one. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — What  do  you  call  a  constitution  ?  A.  A  book 
having  the  test  oath,  and  the  secretai'/s  oath,  and  the  cash-keeper's 
oath,  and  the  rules  of  the  society.) 

Mr.  Prime- Serge  ANT. — My  lords,  I  now  go  back  to  the  county  of 
Dublin,  and  hope  the  intimation  from  the  court  will  have  the  effect 
intended. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — Have  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner 
any  objection  to  their  going  to  this  evidence  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  have,  my  lords ;  and  wish  to  know  whether  the 
witness  be  done  as  to  the  parts  he  has  testified,  that  he  may  not,  after 
my  objection,  supply  anything,  by  saying  he  omitted  any  expression, 
which  he  forgot. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — We  do  not  give  any  opinion  upon 
the  law  now  ;  but  we  wish  for  the  sake  of  pei-spicuity  that  you  would 
finish  in  the  city. 

Mr.  Prime- Sergeant. — I  have  no  objection  to  accommodate  the 
court ;  but  it  may  be  drawn  into  example  hereafter. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — You  must  then  support  your  objec- 
tion, Mr.  Curran. 

Mr.  Curran. — ]My  lords,  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  law,  that  an 
overt  act  must  be  established  in  the  county  where  the  indictment  is 
found,  before  evidence  of  an  overt  act  in  a  foreign  county  can  be 
received.  I  take  it  to  be  clear  law,  that  some  overt  act  must  be 
clearly  proved,  if  the  evidence  be  credible,  in  the  proper  county,  such 
as  would  completely  establish  an  overt  act  in  the  indictment.  See 
what  the  evidence  is  :  the  only  overt  act  to  which  the  evidence  can 
apply,  is  that  of  levying  money  to  send  persons  into  France  to  invite 
the  French  to  invade  this  country.  There  is  evidence  of  an  overt 
act  of  treason  to  give  material  information  to  an  enemy  at  war. 
There  is  no  occasion  to  cite  cases.  Hensey's  case  is  directly  in  point. 
Preston's  case  is  in  point.  Therefore,  my  objection  is  this,  that  the 
evidence  given  is  evidence  of  a  distinct  kind  of  overt  act,  an  established 
overt  act  of  treason,  clearly  known  to  the  law.  The  overt  act  in  this 
indictment  is,  that  the  prisoner  levied  money  to  send  messengers  to 
France  to  invite  them  to  invade  this  country  ;  the  evidence  is  not 
that,  but  that  messengers  had  been  sent  in  consequence  of  a  previous 
determination  on  the  part  of  France  to  invade  this  country ;  alluding 
to  the  notorious  event  of  their  coming  to  Bantry  Bay. 

Mr.  Prime-  Sergeant. — Do  your  lordships  think  it  necessary  for 

me  to  say  a  word  ? 

2o 


562  TRIAL    OF  j 

Mr.  Justice    Chamberlain "We  are  of  opinion,  that  there  is 

evidence  to  go  to  the  jury,  and  unless  there  be  no  evidence,  Mr. 
Curran  himself  admits  that  his  objection  falls  to  the  ground.  We 
think  there  is  evidence  of  the  several  overt  acts,  and  particularly  of 
the  first — that  the  prisoner  associated  with  others  under  the  denomi- 
nation of  United  Ii'ishmen,  with  design  and  for  the  purpose  of  aiding 
and  assisting  the  persons  exercising  the  powers  of  government  in 
France,  in  case  they  should  invade  this  kingdom.  Now  we  think 
there  is  evidence,  if  credited,  to  support  that.  Here  are  oaths  pro- 
posed— a  society  is  formed :  clearly,  the  purpose  of  this  society  is 
inquirable  into ;  and  the  same  witness  discovers  at  subsequent 
meetings  that  they  had  sent  persons  into  France,  to  inform  the 
French  of  the  state  and  number  of  persons  inclined  to  assist  them, 
and  ready  to  join  them.  Is  not  this  evidence  to  go  to  a  jury  to  show 
the  purpose  of  this  association,  if  the  jury  believe  it?  Then  there 
is  evidence  in  the  city  of  Dublin  of  a  plan  to  attack  the  ordnance 
stores.  Is  it  not  for  the  jury  to  inquire  for  what  purpose  that  attack 
was  to  be  made;  and  may  it  not  be  coupled  with  the  expressions 
of  the  prisoner,  that  persons  had  been  sent  into  France,  and  some  j 
of  them  had  retui'ned  ?  The  jury,  coupling  the  forming  of  the  associa-  1 
tion  with  the  plan  to  attack  the  ordnance,  are  to  see  whether  all 
this  was  done  for  the  purpose  laid  in  the  indictment,  of  adhering 
to  and  assisting  the  French  if  they  should  land.  I  do  not  say  what 
the  jury  will  intend  upon  this  evidence,  but  I  think  they  may  intend 
that  these  proceedings  were  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  the  French. 

IMr.  Baron  Smith, — It  is  sufficient  for  me  to  say,  that  I  entirely 
concur  in  the  opinion  delivered  by  Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. 

Q.  You  told  me  that  you  got  into  Coghran's  by  the  word,  "  Mr. 
Green."  Where  is  Coghran's  ?  A.  No.  47,  Newmarket  on  the 
Coombe. 

Q.  You  got  in  by  the  word  "  Mr.  Green  ?"  A.  I  did,  by  asking 
"  is  Mr.  Green  here  ?" 

Q.  Was  the  prisoner  there  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — This  was  the  Sunday  after  you  were  sworn  ? 
A.  It  was  Sunday  the  25th  of  April.) 

Q.  You  were  admitted  ?  A.  I  was  admitted  up  stairs,  and  Finney 
introduced  me  to  the  men  there  as  a  true  man  and  a  brother — that  he 
had  sworn  me  himself. 

Q.  What  happened  there  ?  A.  He  asked  me  for  sixpence ;  I  told 
him  I  had  it  not ;  he  told  me  to  go  to  Pimlico  that  evening,  and  that 
10,000  United  Irishmen  were  to  walk  after  the  funeral  of  Michael 
Ryan,  and  that  every  man  of  them  was  to  pay  sixpence.  They  were 
to  walk  to  show  government  their  strength,  and  what  they  were. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  that  funeral  ?  A.  I  went  home  first  and  pro- 
cured some  money,  and  then  went  to  the  funeral.  I  walked  as  far  as 
the  Castle-gate,  and  the  guard  being  coming,  I  was  afraid  I  might  be 
killed  as  much  as  any  man  that  deserved  it,  for  I  was  all  that  time 
giving  information. 

Q.  Was  the  prisoner  there  ?  A.  He  was — ^he  was  making  us  walk 
four  deep  ;  and  afterwards  he  was  making  us  walk  six  deep. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — You  walked  four  deep  ?  A.  We  did,  four  in 
a  breast. 


rATBICK  FINNEY.  563 

Q.  Who  made  you  walk  that  way  ?  A.  Finney ;  and  after  he  saw 
the  crowd  too  throng,  he  made  us  w^alk  six  deep.) 

Q.  You  went  home  ?  A.  I  did,  and  got  some  money,  and  went  to 
Coghran's,  and  got  in  upon  the  word,  after  the  corpse  was  interred. 
Finney  introduced  me  as  before,  that  I  was  a  true  man  and  a  brother, 
for  he  had  sworn  me  himself.  Then  he  demanded  sixpence  from  me,  as 
every  man  at  the  funeral  had  paid  sixpence  for  the  good  of  the  cause. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  more  money  there  but  that  sixpence  ?  A.  Un- 
doubtedly I  did,  both  gold,  and  brass,  and  paper — men  were  coming 
in  and  paying  it,  and  he  received  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Court — You  saw  notes  and  money  ?  A.  Notes  and 
money,  my  lord. 

Q.  Received  by  him  ?  A.  Yes,  brought  in  by  different  people  and 
received  by  him.) 

Q.  Did  he  read  anything  at  that  meeting  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  "\Yhat  was  it  ?  A.  He  read  the  constitution,  the  strength  of 
men  and  arms  in  Ii-eland — I  cannot  recollect  the  strength  of  arms, 
but  he  told  me  there  was  1 1 1,000  men  in  the  province  of  Ulster. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — You  do  not  recollect  the  arms  ?  A.  I  do  not ; 
but  he  said  there  were  two  ships  arrived  with  arms  and  ammunition 
from  France.) 

Q.  Was  there  any  meeting  appointed  for  a  futm-e  day  ?  A.  There 
was. 

Q.  WTiere?     A.  Tuite's  in  Thomas-street. 

Q.  Was  there  any  pass- word  ?     A.  There  was — "  Mr.  Flail." 

Q.  Was  there  any  meeting  at  Halfpenny's  ?     A.  There  Avas. 

Q.  At  that  meeting  was  Finney  present  ?     A.  He  was  not. 

Q.  You  recollect  what  passed  about  examining  White's-court  and 
Georore-street,  what  was  to  be  done  afterwards  ?  A.  We  were  to  see 
how  it  might  be  easy  to  get  in  without  blood.  What  opinion  we 
formed  we  were  to  communicate  to  the  officers  of  each  split,  that  they 
might  report  it  to  the  baronial  committee,  and  that  they  should  report 
to  the  national  committee. 

Q.  Did  you  report  it  accordingly  ?  A.  We  did  ;  and  every  one  of 
the  old  split  gave  their  opinion  that  it  was  a  very  good  act,  and  could 
easily  be  done,  except  five  new  members  that  came  in. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  meeting  appointed  for  any  other  place  ? 
A.  There  was. 

Q.  Wliere  ?  A.  At  Archbold's,  in  Skinner's-alley — the  pass- word 
was  to  be  "  Harp,"  because  Halfpenny  had  a  harpsichord  in  the  parlour 
where  he  swore  the  five  men,  and  played_some  tunes  upon  it;  therefore 
the  pass-word  was  agreed  to  be  "  the  harp." 

Q.  ^Yliat  happened  there  ?  A.  There  were  seven  new  members 
sworn,  which  made  us  twenty-fom',  and  obliged  us  to  have  a  split 
that  day. 

Q.  Did  you  get  any  place  in  that  split  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  AVhat  place  ?  A.  I  was  voted  cash-keeper  of  that  split ;  I  was 
only  elected  there,  and  was  sworn  in  at  North  King-street  at  the 
baronial  meeting.  I  told  you  that  Finney  had  scolded  Halfpenny  for 
letting  mc  come  to  the  baronial  meeting  without  being  sworn. 

Q.  Was  there  any  benefit  annexed  to  the  office  of  secretary  or  cash- 
keeper  ?     A.  They  had. 


564  TRIAJL  OF 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  No  other  could  go  to  the  baronial  meeting 
but  secretaries  and  cash-keepers. 

Q.  Did  you  go  there  to  be  sworn  in  ?  A.  No ;  I  did  not  know 
that  I  would  be  sworn,  but  several  of  us  went,  and  Finney,  who  was 
in  a  great-coat. 

Q.  (By  the  jury Was  Finney  present  ?     A.  He  brought  me  from 

Archbold's  to  North  King-street.) 

Q.  You  recollect  you  said  there  was  a  meeting  appointed  at  Meath- 
street,  and  the  pass-word  agreed  upon  was  "  Mr.  Patrick  ?"  A.  I 
do ;  it  was  agreed  that  the  meeting  should  not  be  till  the  Tuesday 
eight-days  following. 

Q.  You  went  to  that  meeting  ?  A.  I  did  on  the  Tuesday  eight- 
days  following. 

Q.  How  did  you  get  in  ?  A.  There  were  two  men  on  the  stairs, 
and  they  both  saw  whether  I  was  catechised,  to  see  whether  I  knew 
the  signs,  although  I  had  the  pass-word — "  is  Mr.  Patrick  here." 

Q.  Was  Finney  there  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  Was  Cooke  there  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  Was  there  any  debate  ?  A.  There  was  :  Finney  said  as  soon 
as  they  should  all  come  in  they  should  be  sworn  not  to  make  use 
of  the  Christian  names  of  one  another,  lest  it  might  lead  to  a 
discovery. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  with  regard  to  persons  who  should  give 
information  ?     A.  There  was. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  Cooke  said,  that  any  man  who  was  only 
to  be  censured  for  giving  information  to  government,  should  have  his 
eyes  plucked  out,  his  hands  cut  off,  and  his  tongue  cut  out. 

Q.  (By  the  Court What  do  you  mean  by  censured?     A.  To 

suppose  they  were  giving  information  against  the  party. 

Q.  His  hands  were  to  be  cut  off?  A.  They  were — the  way  he 
could  not  write  ;  and  those  who  gave  evidence  for  government  were 
to  be  murdered.) 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  woman  going  into  the  room  ?  A.  No  ; 
but  I  recollect  she  sent  her  man  in. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ?  A.  The  man  said  his  mistress  had  been 
looking  out  of  the  window  and  saw  people  watching  about  the  house, 
and  desired  us  to  take  care.  Finney  immediately  desired  every  one 
to  give  up  the  papers :  he  got  them  all,  put  them  into  his  bosom,  and 
he  and  another  went  across  the  table  and  got  down  stairs. 

Q.  Did  anybody  come  in,  or  were  any  taken  ?  A.  Every  one  of 
us  were  taken — sixteen. 

Q.  Who  came  in  ?     A.  Some  gentlemen  and  guards. 

Q.  Tell  the  people  who  were  taken.  A.  There  was  Cooke,  Half- 
penny, Hartford,  M'Cue,  Molony,  Flinn — I  do  not  immediately 
recollect  any  more  of  them. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  who  came  in  with  the  guards  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Who  ?     A.  Major  Sirr  and  Captain  Atkinson. 

Q.  Had  you  given  any  information  to  them  ?  A.  Not  to  Atkinson, 
but  I  had  to  Major  Sirr  and  some  other  gentlemen. 

Q.  You  recollect  the  meeting  at  Meath-street  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Was  there  any  report  ?     A.  There  was. 

Q.  By  whom  ?     A.  By  Finney — that  there  should  be  no  explosion 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  565 

among  the  United  Irishmen  until  such  time  as  the  French  should 
come  either  to  England  or  Ireland,  but  they  should  continue  to  swear 
in  as  many  as  they  could,  and  secrete  all  the  arms  and  ammunition 
they  should  get. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  Pray,  Mr.  O'Brien,  whence  came  you?  A.  Speak  in  a  way  I 
will  understand  you. 

Q.  Do  you  not  understand  me  ?  A.  Whence  ? — I  am  here — do 
you  mean  the  place  I  came  from  ? 

Q.  By  your  oath,  do  you  not  understand  it  ?  A.  I  partly  censure 
it  now. 

Q.  Now  that  you  partly  censure  the  question,  answer  it — where 
did  you  come  from  ?     A.  From  the  Castle. 

Q.  Do  you  live  there  ?     A.  I  do  while  I  am  there. 

Q.  You  are  welcome,  sir,  to  practise  your  wit  upon  me — where 
did  you  live  before  you  came  to  Dublin  ?     A.  In  the  Queen's  County. 

Q.  What  way  of  life  were  you  engaged  in  before  you  came  to 
Dublin  ?  A.  I  had  a  farm  of  land  which  my  father  left  me,  and  I 
set  it,  and  afterwards  sold  it,  and  came  to  Dublin  to  follow  business 
I  learned  before  my  father's  death.  I  served  four  years  to  Mr. 
Latouche  of  JMarley. 

Q.  To  what  business  ?     A.  A  gardener. 

Q.  Were  you  an  excise-officer  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  never  acted  as  one  ?  A.  I  do  not  doubt  but  I  may  have 
gone  of  messages  for  one. 

Q.  Who  was  that  ?     A.  A  man  of  the  name  of  Fitzpatrick. 

Q.  He  is  an  excise  officer  ?     A.  So  I  understand. 

Q.  What  messages  did  you  go  for  him  ?  A.  For  money,  when  he 
was  lying  on  a  sick  bed. 

Q.  To  whom  ?     A.  To  several  of  the  people  in  his  walk. 

Q.  But  you  never  pretended  to  be  an  officer  yourself?  A.  As  I 
have  been  walking  with  him,  and  had  clean  clothes  on  me,  he  might 
have  said  to  the  persons  he  met  that  I  was  an  excise-  officer. 

Q.  But  did  you  ever  pretend  to  be  an  officer  ?  A.  I  never  did 
pretend  to  be  an  officer. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  pass  yourself  for  a  revenue  officer  ?  A.  I  an- 
swered that  before. 

Q.  I  do  not  want  to  give  you  any  unnecessary  trouble,  sir — treat 
me  with  the  same  respect  I  shall  treat  you.  I  ask  you  again,  did 
you  ever  pass  yourself  for  a  revenue  officer  ?  A.  Never ;  barring 
when  I  was  in  drink  and  the  like. 

Q.  Then,  when  you  have  been  drunk,  you  have  passed  for  a 
revenue  officer  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  what  I  have  done  when  I  was 
drunk. 

Q.  Did  you  at  any  time,  drunk  or  sober,  pass  yourself  as  a  revenue 
officer  ?     A.  Never,  when  sober. 

Q.  Did  you,  drunk  or  sober  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  what  I  did  when  I 
was  drunk. 

Q.  Can  you  form  a  belief  ?  I  ask  you  upon  your  oath,  you  are  upon 
a  solemn  occasion,  did  you  pass  yourself  for  a  revenue  officer  ?  A. 
I  cannot  say  what  happened  to  me  when  I  was  drunk. 


566 


TRIAL    OF 


Q.  What !  do  j^u  say  you  might  have  done  it  when  you  were 
drunk  ?     A.  I  cannot  recollect  what  passed  in  my  drink. 

Q.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  being  drunk  ?  A.  Not  now,  but  some 
time  back  I  was. 

Q.  Very  fond  of  drink  ?     A.  Very  fond  of  drink. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  to  whom  you  passed  yourself  for  a  revenue 
officer  ?     A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  man  who  keeps  the  Red  Cow,  of  the  name  of 
Cavanagh  ?     A.  Where  does  he  live  ? 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  yourself?  A.  There  is  one  Red  Cow  above 
the  Fox  and  Geese. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  pass  yourself  as  a  revenue  officer  there  ?  A.  I 
never  was  there  but  with  Fitzpatrick ;  and  one  day  there  had  been  a 
scuffle,  and  he  abused  Fitzpatrick  and  threatened  him  j  I  drank  some 
whiskey  there  and  paid  for  it,  and  went  to  Fitzpatrick  and  told  him, 
and  I  summoned  Cavanagh. 

Q.  For  selling  spirits  without  licence  ?  A.  I  did,  and  compromised 
the  business. 

Q.  By  taking  money,  and  not  prosecuting  him  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  put  money  into  youi-  own  pocket  by  that  ?      A.  I  did. 

Q.  But  you  swear  you  never  passed  yourself  for  a  revenue  officer  ? 
A.  Barring  when  I  was  drunk. 

Q.  Were  you  drunk  when  you  summoned  Cavanagh  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  When  you  did  not  prosecute  him  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  When  you  put  his  money  into  your  pocket  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  of  the  name  of  Patrick  Lamb  ?  A.  I  do 
not ;  but  if  you  brighten  my  memory  I  may  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  any  man  that  you  were  a  supernumerary,  and 
that  your  walk  was  Ratlifaniham  and  Tallagh.  A.  I  never  did  except 
when  I  was  drunk  ;  but  I  never  did  anything  but  what  was  honest 
when  I  was  sober. 

Q.  Do  you  belie^'e  you  did  say  it  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  what  I  might 
have  said  when  I  was  drunk.  You  knoAv  when  a  man  is  walkiu"; 
with  an  exciseman  he  gets  a  glass  at  every  house. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — I  know  no  such  thing,  never  having  walked  with  an 
exciseman. 

Witness Then  you  may  know  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  man  passing  by  the  name  or  called  Patrick 
Lamb.     A.  Not  that  I  recollect,  upon  my  word. 

Q.  Upon  your  oath  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect :  I  mean  to  tell  every- 
thing against  myself  as  against  any  other. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  person  of  the  name  of  Margaret  Moore  ?  A. 
Where  does  she  live — is  she  manned  ? 

Q.  She  lives  near  Stradbally.  Do  you  know  her  ?  A.  I  know  her 
well :  I  thought  it  might  be  another.  I  was  courting  a  woman  of  that 
name  before  my  marriage. 

Q.  Did  you  come  to  Dublin  before  her  or  after?  A.  I  was  in 
Dublin  before  I  knew  her. 

Q.  Did  you  get  a  decree  against  her  ?  A.  I  did  get  a  summons  for 
money  she  owed  me. 

Q.  Were  you  taken  to  the  court  of  Conscience  by  her  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Never?     A.  Never. 


PATRICK    FINNEY.  567 

Q.  Did  she  pay  you  the  money  since  ?  A.  No :  my  brother  and 
sister  run  a  bill  Avith  her,  and  my  brother  gave  a  note,  he  being  under 
age  ;  and  afterwards  I  took  a  house  in  Stradbally,  and  did  not  like 
making  a  noise  before  the  neighbours,  and  paid  her  nine  guineas. 

Q.  Was  there  any  money  refunded  her  by  order  of  the  court  ?  A. 
I  do  not  know  ;  she  lodged  money  for  her  security  in  the  house  where 
she  lay,  as  a  security  for  her  return  the  next  day. 

Q.  Were  you  summoned  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  paid  any  money  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  she  pay  any  money  to  any  person  ?  A.  Do  not  I  tell  you 
she  lodged  money  as  a  security  until  next  day. 

Q.  When  you  met  Hyland  were  you  an  United  Irishman  ?  A. 
Always  united  to  every  honest  man. 

Q.  Were  you  an  United  Irishman  ?     A.  Never  sworn. 

Q.  AVei-e  you  in  any  manner  an  United  Irishman  before  that  day  ? 
A.  Never  sworn  in  before  that  day. 

Q.  Were  you  in  any  manner  ?  A.  Do  not  I  tell  you  that  I  was 
united  to  every  honest  man? 

Q.  Do  you  believe  you  are  answering  my  question  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  in  any  society  of  United  Irishmen  before  that 
day  ?  A.  I  do  not  at  all  know  but  I  may,  but  without  my  knowledge  ; 
they  might  be  in  the  next  box  to  me,  or  in  the  end  of  the  seat  with 
me,  I  do  not  know  them. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  in  any  society  of  United  Irishmen  but  that  day  ? 
A.  I  was  since. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  of  their  meetings,  or  did  you  know  anything 
of  their  business  before  that  day  ?  A.  No ;  but  I  have  heard  of 
Defenders'  business. 

Q.  Were  you  of  their  society  ?  A.  No ;  but  when  they  came  to 
my  father's  house  I  went  to  Admiral  Cosby's  and  kept  guard  there, 
and  threatened  to  shoot  any  of  them  that  would  come.  One  Connelly 
told  me  I  was  to  be  murdered  for  this  expression. 

Q.  Hyland  made  signs  to  you  in  the  street  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  you  answer  them  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  ?     A.  Because  I  did  not  know  how. 

Q.  Then  is  your  evidence  this,  that  you  went  into  the  house  in  order 
to  save  your  life  ?  A.  I  was  told  that  I  might  lose  my  life  before  I 
went  half  a  street  if  I  did  not. 

Q.  Then  it  was  from  fear  of  being  murdered  before  you  should  go 
half  a  street,  that  you  went  in  to  be  an  United  Irishman  ?  A.  You 
have  often  heard  of  men  being  murdered  in  the  business. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  ?  A.  I  do ;  it  is  common  through  the 
country.  I  have  read  the  proclamations  upon  it,  and  you  may  have 
done  so  too. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  were  sworn  did  you  see  the  magistrate  ?  A. 
I  was  sworn  upon  the  25  th,  and  upon  the  28th  I  was  brought  to  Lord 
Portarlington,  and  in  the  interval  of  the  two  days  Hyland  was  with 
me  and  dined  with  me. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  go  the  next  day  ?  A.  Because  I  did  not  get 
clear  of  them,  and  they  might  murder  me. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sleep  the  first  night  after?  A.  At  my  own 
place.     I  was  very  full — very  drunk. 


568 


TRIAL    OF 


Q.  Did  either  of  them  sleep  there  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  "Where  did  you  live  ?  A.  In  Kevin-street,  among  some  friends, 
good  to  the  same  cause. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  Hyland  the  next  day  ?  A.  He  came  to  me 
next  morning  before  I  was  out  of  bed,  and  staid  all  day  and  dined. 
We  drank  full  in  the  evening. 

Q.  Wbat  became  of  you  next  day  ?  A.  Hyland  came  early  again 
and  staid  all  day.  I  was  after  getting  two  guineas  from  my  brother. 
I  was  determined  to  see  it  out,  to  know  their  conspiracies  after  I  was 
sworn. 

Q.  Then  you  meant  to  give  evidence?  A.  I  never  went  to  a 
meeting  that  I  did  not  give  an  account  of  it. 

Q.  (By  the  Court To  whom  did  you  give  information  ?     A.  To 

Colonel  Henniker,  Lord  Portarlington,  and  Mr.  Secretary  Cooke,  in 
the  Castle. 

Q.  How  soon  after  these  meetings  ?  A.  I  gave  information  before 
I  went  to  Newmarket  on  the  Coombe,  that  I  was  to  meet  there.) 

Q.  I  wish  you  would  recollect  yourself  as  to  Mrs.  Moore ;  did  you 
not  swear  that  there  was  no  re-hearing  of  a  cause  between  you  before 
a  magistrate  ?     A.  You  did  not  ask  me  that  before. 

Q.  I  ask  you  now  ?  A.  I  believe  there  was  between  her  and  the 
bailiff. 

Q.  You  were  not  sworn  ?  A.  I  never  swore  an  oath  there.  I  was 
talking  to  a  young  man  of  the  name  of  Kilbride 

Q.  (By  the  Court — What  was  the  re-hearing  about  ?  A.  She  had 
let  my  brother  and  sister  run  in  debt,  and  he  passed  a  note,  and  that 
was  hurting  my  cx'edit  in  Stradbally,  and  I  was  obliged  to  take  up  the 
note.) 

Q.  You  were  not  sworn  ?     A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Did  you  get  an  order  ?  A.  I  got  an  immediate  summons  with- 
out being  sworn.  She  put  an  immediate  summons  upon  the  pillars  of 
the  Tholsel,  not  knowing  where  I  lived,  and  when  we  came  before  the 
magistrate  he  tore  them  both. 

Q.  Did  you  say  she  was  arrested  ?  A.  Indeed  it  was  the  bailiff 
humbugged  me  out  of  the  money  ;  I  was  not  up  to  the  tricks  of  Dublin 
that  time. 

Q.  Was  she  arrested  ?     A.I  believe  she  was  ;  the  bailiff  told  me  so. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  Clarke,  of  Blue-bell  ?  A.  I  have  heard 
of  such  a  man. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  him  ?      A.  I  do :  I  do  not  mean  to  tell  a  lie. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  him  at  first  ?  A.  There  are  many  men  of 
the  name  of  Clarke.  I  did  not  know  but  it  might  be  some  other.  It 
did  not  immediately  come  into  my  memory. 

Q.  You  thought  it  might  be  some  other  Clarke  ?  A.  There  is  a 
Clarke  came  into  me  yesterday. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  get  money  from  Clarke,  of  Blue-bell,  as  an  excise 
officer?  A.  I  got  three  and  three  pence  from  him  not  to  tell 
Fitzpatrick.  He  did  not  know  me,  and  I  bought  spirits  there,  and 
seeing  me  walking  Avith  an  exciseman,  he  was  afraid  I  wovild  tell  of 
him,  and  he  gave  me  three  and  three  pence. 

Q.  And  you  put  it  into  your  pocket  ?     A.  To  be  sure. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Clarke  give  you  any  money  ?     A.  Not  that  I  recollect. 


PATRICK    FINNEY.  569 

I  got  three  and  three  pence  between  them.  The  husband  gave  me 
three  and  three  pence. 

Q.  You  said  before  he  gave  you  three  and  three  pence,  that  is 
settled.  Did  you  get  any  afterwards  from  her  ?  A.  No  ;  I  got  it 
from  them  both.  He  struck  her  for  giving  me  spirits,  and  then  they 
disputed,  and  she  gave  him  money  to  give  me,  and  I  got  it  from  the 
husband. 

Q.  Did  you  pass  yourself  as  a  revenue  officer  upon  him  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  swear  that  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  You  know  a  man  of  the  name  of  Edward  Purcell?  A.  That  is 
the  man  that  led  me  into  everything.  He  has  figured  among  the 
United  Irishmen.  He  got  about  forty  pounds  of  their  money  and 
went  off.     He  has  been  wi-itten  to  several  times. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  know  him  ?  A.  Through  the  friendship  of 
Fitzpatrick.  He  had  Fitzpatrick's  wife,  as  a  body  might  say,  having 
another  man's  wife. 

Q.  He  made  you  acquainted  ?  A.  I  saw  him  there,  and  Fitzpatrick 
well  contented. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  give  you  a  receipt  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Was  it  for  money  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  It  was  partly  an  order,  where  Hyland  he 
and  I  hoped  to  be  together.  It  was  a  pass-word  that  I  gave  him 
to  go  to  Hyland  to  buy  light  gold  that  I  knew  was  going  to  the 
country. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  give  him  any  other  receipt  ?  A.  I  do  not  know 
but  I  might — we  had  many  dealings. 

Q.  Had  you  many  dealings  in  receipts  ?     A.  In  receipts. 

Q.  I  mean  receipts  to  do  a  thing  ;  as  to  make  a  pudding,  &c.  Did 
you  give  him  receipts  of  that  nature  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  but  I 
might  give  him  receipts  to  do  a  great  number  of  things. 

Q.  To  do  a  great  number  of  things — Avhat  are  they  ?  A.  Tell  me 
the  smallest  hint,  and  I  will  tell  the  truth. 

Q.  Upon  that  engagement,  I  will  tell  you.  Did  you  ever  give  him 
a  receipt  to  turn  silver  into  gold,  or  copper  into  silver  ?  A.  Yes,  for 
turning  copper  into  silver. 

Q.  You  have  kept  your  word  ?  A.  I  said  I  would  tell  everything 
against  myself. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  against  yourself?  A.  I  tell  you  the 
truth — I  gave  him  a  receipt  for  making  copper  money  like  silver 
money. 

Q.  What  did  you  give  it  him  for  ;  did  he  make  use  of  it ;  was  it 
to  protect  his  copper  from  being  changed  that  you  did  it  ?  A.  He 
was  very  officious  to  make  things  in  a  light  easy  way,  without  much 
trouble,  to  make  his  bread  light.  But  I  did  it  more  in  fun  than 
profit. 

Q.  You  did  not  care  how  much  coin  he  made  by  it  ?  A.  I  did 
not  care  how  much  coin  he  made  by  it :  he  might  put  it  upon  the 
market  cross. 

Q.  Do  you  say,  you  do  not  care  how  many  copper  shillings  he 
made  ?     A.  I  did  not  care  whether  he  made  use  of  it  or  not. 

Q.  Upon  your  solemn  oath  you  say,  that  you  did  not  care  how 
many  base  shillings  he  made  in  consequence  of  the  receipt  you  gave 


570  TRIAL    OP 

him  ?  A.  I  did  not  care  liow  many  he  told  of  it ;  or  what  he  did 
with  it. 

Q.  Had  you  never  seen  it  ti'ied  ?  A.  No,  I  never  saw  the  recipe 
I  gave  him  tried,  but  I  saw  others  tried. 

Q.  For  making  copper  look  like  silver  ?     A.  To  be  sure. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect,  Avhether  you  gave  him  half  a  crown  upon 
which  that  recipe  was  tried  ?  A.  I  never  saw  it  tried  ;  but  I  gave 
him  a  bad  half-crown  ;  I  did  not  give  it  him  in  payment.  I  did  it 
more  to  humbug  him,  than  anything  else. 

Q.  "Were  you  never  a  seller  of  tea  at  Stradbally  ?     A.  Never. 

Q.  Anywhere  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  At  the  Canal  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  in  your  custody  any  quantity  of  tea  ?  A.  Never, 
but  when  I  might  buy  it  for  my  family  and  bring  it  home. 

Q.  You  never  bought  a  quantity  of  tea  at  the  Canal  Stores  ?  A. 
Never. 

Q.  Did  you  demand  any  there  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  send  any  person  to  demand  any  ?  A.  No  :  I  do  not  know 
what  you  are  talking  of  at  all. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  tea  that  Fitzpatrick  seized  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  live  at  Power's  in  Thomas-street  ?  A.  I  did  by 
day,  but  never  at  night. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  tea  being  taken  out  of  Power's  house  ?  A. 
No,  I  do  not  recollect  its  being  taken ;  but  I  recollect  to  have  heard 
of  such  a  thing  being  done. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  charged  with  having  that  tea  ?  A.  I  went 
home  the  evening  the  tea  was  said  to  be  taken,  and  was  in  bed,  when 
at  twelve  o'clock  at  night,  Master  John  Power  and  some  Avatchmen 
came  and  took  me  out  of  bed.     They  searched  the  place. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General.. — How  long  since  ?  A.  Twelve  or 
fifteen  months  ago. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — -Is  that  your  hand-writing  (showing  a  paper  to 
the  witness)  ?     A.  That  is  my  hand-writing. 

Q.  That  is  one  of  the  receipts  you  gave  Power  ?  A.  I  do  not 
know  ;  but  I  gave  him  many  ;  I  will  not  deny  anything. 

Q.  Have  you  no  recollection  of  any  other  that  you  gave  him  ? 
A.  I  may  have  given  him  others. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  them  ?  A.  Unless  you  brighten 
my  memory. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  now  of  what  any  other  receipt  was. 
Do  you  swear  that  ?  A.  Indeed  I  have  not,  but  as  you  may  give  me 
a  small  hint,  it  may  come  to  me. 

Q.  Recollect  what  you  said.  I  ask  you,  have  you  no  recollection 
of  what  any  of  them  was  ?  A.  I  have  not,  barring  you  give  me 
some  small  hint,  and  then  I  will  tell  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  became  of  that  tea  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  any  one  you  did  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  anybody  that  you  found  any  tea  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  that  you  lodged  any  at  the  Canal  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  of  the  name  of  Patrick  Brady  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Or  Michael  Brady  ?     A.  Not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Then  you  never  told  such  a  man,  that  you  had  taken  the  tea. 


PATRICK   FINNEY.  571 

or  knew  anything  of  it  ?     A.  Never  to  my  recollection.      If  I  did  it 
was  false. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  it,  true  or  false,  to  any  person,  that  you  "-ot 
half  of  it  as  an  informer  ?     A.  Never. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Roberts  ?     A.  What  Mr.  Roberts  ? 

Q.  Mr.  Arthur  Roberts  of  Stradbally  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  any  person  about  his  giving  a  character  of 
you  ?     A.  He  could  not  give  a  bad  character  of  me. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  any  person  about  his  giving  you  a  character  ? 
A.  I  say  now,  in  the  hearing  of  the  court  and  the  jury,  that  I  heard 
of  his  being  summoned  against  me,  and  unless  he  would  forswear 
himself,  he  could  not  give  me  a  bad  character. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  you  would  do  anything  against  him  ?  A.  I 
said  I  would  settle  him,  but  do  you  know  how  ?  There  was  a  matter 
about  an  auction  that  I  would  tell  of  him. 

Q.  Had  you  a  weapon  in  your  hand  at  the  time  ?  A.  I  believe  I 
had  a  sword. 

Q.  And  a  pistol  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  had  them  in  your  hand  at  the  time  you  made  the 
declaration  ?  A.  I  knew  he  was  a  government  man,  and  I  would 
not  do  anything  to  him  in  the  way  of  assassination. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  of  the  name  of  George  Howell  ?  A. 
Thomas  Cooke  knows  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  pass  yourself  before  him  as  a  revenue  officer  ?  A.  I 
do  not  remember  that  I  did.     It  might  be  the  case  through  drink. 

Q.  You  must  be  very  drunk  when  you  did  it  ?  A.  I  never  did  it 
when  sober. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  apply  at  Justice  Wilson's  office,  in  New-street,  for 
a  summons  as  a  revenue  officer  ?     A.  It  is  not  in  New-street  at   all. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  apply  at  his  office  ?  A.  It  was  at  his  office  I  got 
the  summons  for  Cavanagh,  and  the  justice  desired  me,  when  the  man 
was  to  appear,  to  bring  the  officer  of  the  walk  there. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  pass  yourself  there  as  a  revenue  officer  ?  A. 
If  I  did,  Mr.  AVilson  would  not  desire  me  to  have  the  officer  of  the 
walk  there. 

Q.  You  said  you  never  sold  tea  to  anybody  ?     A.  Never. 

Do  you  know  a  man  of  the  name  of  Dunn  ?  A.  I  know  tlie  wife 
of  Matthew  Dunn  who  keeps  the  Churn-Inn  in  Thomas-street. 

Mr.  Solicitor-General. — What  you  said  about  Roberts,  you 
said  publicly  ?  A.  I  made  no  secret  of  it ;  but  I  did  not  say  it  with 
a  bad  intent. 

Q.  (By  the  Jury Was  Finney  present  when  that  conversation  was 

held  about  cutting  off  the  hands,  and  putting  out  the  eyes  of  persons 
suspected  of  informing  government  ?  A.  He  was  ;  and  he  said  fur- 
ther, which  I  forgot,  but  say  now,  that  there  should  be  a  day  appointed 
to  bring  such  persons  in,  as  they  might  not  get  out  again.) 

John  Atkinson,  Esq.,  was  sworn,  and  stated  that  he  went  to  a  house 
in  Meath-street,  the  sign  of  Saint  Patrick,  in  the  latter  end  of  May,  and 
found  there  O'Brien  and  several  others,  amongst  them,  he  thought,  a 
man  of  the  name  of  Cooke,  altogether  about  sixteen  of  them.  He  was  told 
the  signal  word  was  "  is  Mr.  Pati'ick  here,"  and  that  upon  mentioning  it 


572  TRIAL    OF 

he  would  be  admitted  it.  He  got  that  information  from  Colonel 
Alexander  ;  he  gave  it  and  passed  two  persons,  apparently  sentinels, 
who  desired  him  to  go  forward.  He  got  into  a  room  and  found  people 
sitting  there.     He  did  not  see  the  prisoner  there. 

Peter  Clarke  was  sworn,  and  stated  he  recollected  the  31st  of  May- 
last  (1797);  knows  Patrick  Finney  and  identified  him;  was  in  his 
company  in  Thomas-street,  at  Tuite's  house ;  Corporal  Thompson,  of 
the  Kildare  militia,  who  was  afterwards  murdered  near  the  Naul,  was 
there ;  when  we  went  there  Finney  was  in  the  tap-room,  and  called 
out  "  Kildare,  how  are  you."  Finney  gave  one  paper  to  Thompson 
and  another  to  witness  ;  the  paper  produced  is  one  of  them,  the  one  he 
gave  witness ;  on  giving  witness  the  paper  he  desired  witness  to  give 
it  him  again,  as  he  could  not  give  it  without  witness  being  sworn  ; 
Finney  swore  witness. 

The  following  extract  from  the  paper  was  read : — 

"  TEST. 

"  In  the  awful  presence  of  God, 

"  I,  A.  B.,  do  voluntarily  declare,  that  I  will  persevere  in  endea- 
vouring to  form  a  brotherhood  of  affection  among  Irishmen  of  every 
religious  persuasion ;  and  that  I  will  persevere  in  my  endeavours  to 
obtain  an  equal,  full,  and  adequate  rej^resentation  of  all  the  people  of 
Ireland.  I  do  further  declare,  that  neither  hopes,  fears,  rewards,  or 
punishments,  shall  ever  induce  me,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  inform  on 
or  give  evidence  against  any  member  or  members  of  this  or  similar 
societies,  for  any  act  or  expression  of  theirs  done  or  made,  collectively 
or  individually,  in  or  out  of  this  society,  in  pursuance  of  the  spirit  of 
this  obligation." 

"  TEST    FOR    SECRETARIES    OF    SOCIETIES    OR    COMMITTEES. 

"  In  the  awful  presence  of  God, 

"  I,  A.  B.,  do  voluntarily  declare,  that  as  long  as  I  shall  hold  the 
office  of  secretary  to  this  I  will,  to  the  utmost  of  my  abilities, 

faithfully  discharge  the  duties  thereof. 

"  That  all  papers  or  documents  received  by  me,  as  secretary,  I  will 
in  safety  keep.  I  will  not  give  any  of  them,  or  any  copy  or  copies  of 
them,  to  any  person  or  persons,  members,  or  others,  but  by  a  vote  of 
this  ;  and  that  I  will,  at  the  expiration  of  my  secretary- 

ship, deliver  up  to  this  all  such  papers  as  may  be  then  in 

my  posssession." 

Mr.  TowNSEND With  your  lordship's  permission,  we  shall  now 

examine  Lord  Portarlington ;  and  it  is  fair  to  apprise  the  court  and 
the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  of  the  object  of  this  evidence.  The  wit- 
ness, O'Brien,  gave  an  accbunt  of  his  informing  Lord  Portarlington  of 
what  was  going  on.  There  is  an  attempt  made  to  impeach  the  credit 
of  the  witness  ;  and  to  show  his  consistency,  we  now  produce  Lord 
Portarlington. 

Mr.  CuRRAN If  a  witness  be  impeached,  it  is  competent  to  set 

him  up,  and  to  show  that  the  impeachment  is  not  well  founded. 
Every  witness  is  impeached  by  a  cross-examination  ;  but  it  is  not 
usual  to  hear  evidence  in  support  of  the  witness  for  the  prosecution' 
until  the  prisoner's  case  is  gone  through.     You  may  examine  to 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  573 

character  or  to  particular  facts,  and  the  witness  may  be  entitled  to 
call  witnesses  to  his  general  character.  But  can  the  counsel  for  the 
prosecution  say,  "  this  man's  evidence  is  impeached,  or  seems  to  be 
impeached  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner ;  therefore,  we  think  it 
necessary  to  support  him  now."  I  submit,  it  is  not  competent  for 
them  to  set  up  his  character  now. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain — The  tendency  of  the  cross-examina- 
tion is,  to  impeach  O'Brien  in  this  pai'ticular  transaction ;  and  tlie 
witness  now  offered  to  be  produced  is  to  show  that  he  gave  an  account 
of  the  proceedings  as  they  happened.  It  is  not  competent  for  them 
now  to  produce  witnesses  to  show  that  the  witness  ah-eady  examined 
is  of  good  character ;  but  they  want  to  prove  that  his  former  account 
is  consistent  with  his  present.  Such  evidence  has  always  been 
received  in  my  experience. 

Earl  Portarlington  sworn. 

Q.  Your  lordship  saw  James  O'Brien,  the  witness  who  was  exa- 
mined this  day  ?     A.  I  have  seen  him. 

Q.  Does  your  lordship  recollect  upon  what  occasion  you  first  saw 
him  ?  A.  I  never  saw  him  till  the  latter  end  of  last  April,  when  an 
acquaintance  of  mine,  Mi'.  Higgins,  brought  the  witness  to  my  house. 
Mr.  Higgins  said  the  witness  had  told  him,  he  had  matters  to  com- 
municate to  Mr.  Pelham,  but  as  he  had  not  the  honour  of  knowing 
him,  begged  of  me  to  introduce  him.  I  desired  to  know  the  matter 
and  the  chai-acter  of  the  man.  O'Brien  told  me  he  had  been  lately  ad- 
mitted a  member  of  the  society  of  United  Irishmen — that  he  thei-e  found 
out  there  was,  on  the  Sunday  following,  a  great  number  of  people  to 
be  collected  under  pretence  of  a  funeral — that  the  man  to  be  buried 
was  already  buried,  and  he  apprehended,  or  heard,  that  it  would  lead 
to  insui'rection.  He  also  mentioned  some  other  circumstances — I  do 
not  remember  all.  He  stated  that  an  attack  Avas  meditated  upon  the 
arsenal  of  the  Castle.  I  told  the  matter  to  Mr.  Secretary  Cooke,  and 
therefore  did  not  lay  it  upon  my  memory. 

Q.  HoAV  many  interviews  had  you  with  him  ?  A.  I  think  I  had  two 
interviews.  I  desired  him  to  come  no  more,  as  I  had  communicated 
the  matter  to  Mr.  Cooke,  to  whom  it  belonged  more  than  to  me.  I 
asked  him  had  he  anything  new  to  communicate?  He  said,  the  United 
Irishmen  were  busy  coi'rupting  the  servants  of  gentlemen. 

Q.  Did  all  this  conversation  pass  at  one  time  ?  A.  I  think  it  all 
passed  at  one  time.     All  I  mentioned  first  did. 

Q.  Where  ?     A.  At  my  house  in  Kildare-street.     . 

Q.  When  O'Brien  related  this  matter,  what  did  you  do  with  him  ? 
A.  I  went  to  the  House  of  Commons  and  expected  to  see  Mr.  Pelham  ; 
he  had  some  business,  and  Mr.  Cooke  came  to  the  Speaker's  chamber, 
where  O'Bi-ien  related  all  that  he  did  to  me. 

Q.  O'Brien  afterwards  called  a  second  time  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Your  lordship  mentioned  something  that  passed  at  the  second 
meeting ;  can  you  state  anything  more  that  passed  at  the  second  meet- 
ing ?  A.  No,  I  cannot.  As  well  as  I  recollect,  what  he  said  was  at 
the  first  meeting  ;  what  he  said  at  the  second  was  trifling.  I  desired 
him  not  to  come  to  me,  but  to  apply  to  the  executive  government. 

Q.  Had  your  lordship  any  further  meeting  after  the  second  ?     A.  I 


574  TBIAL  OP 

do  not  recollect ;  he  might  have  come  a  third  time,  but  I  did  not  like 
his  coming  after  he  was  in  better  hands,  with  Mr.  Cooke. 

Q.  Is  your  lordship's  recollection  so  accurate  as  that  you  are  certain 
whether  what  you  relate  passed  at  the  first  meeting,  or  whether  some 
might  have  occurred  at  the  second  ?  A.  I  believe  the  whole  may  have 
passed  at  the  first  meeting — he  certainly  gave  notice  of  the  burial. 

Q.  So  far  you  are  certain  ?     A.  I  am. 

Q.  And  the  rest  was  told  by  the  witness  ?     A.  It  was. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  Your  lordship  recollects  tliat  he  told  you  the  United  Irishmen 
were  busy  among  gentlemen's  servants — that  was  at  the  first  meeting  ? 
A.  I  cannot  recollect — I  rather  believe  it  was. 

Q.  He  told  you  of  the  funeral  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  the  name  of  the  person  to  be  buried  ?  A.  He 
did  mention  the  name  and  the  house,  but  I  do  not  recollect  them. 

Q.  He  said  it  was  a  fictitious  funeral  ?     A.  He  did,  I  think. 

Mr.  Attorney-General. — My  lords,  on  the  part  of  the  crown, 
we  rest  the  case  here,  unless  the  evidence  for  the  prisoner  makes  it 
necessary  we  shovdd  go  further. 

Mr.  M'Nally  stated  the  prisoner's  case  ;  and  when  he  concluded, 
the  court  adjourned  for  twenty  minutes,  and  the  sheriff  was  ordered 
to  provide  refreshment  for  the  jury,  who  were  not  allowed  to  leave  the 
box.     When  the  court  was  resumed, 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain  said — "We  wish  that  the  counsel  for  the 
prosecution  Avould  point  out  the  overt  acts  upon  which  they  mean  to 
rely,  and  to  which  they  apply  the  evidence,  before  the  counsel  for  the 
prisoner  shall  speak  to  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Curran. — My  lords,  we  first  pray  that  the  paper  which  O'Brien 
admitted  to  be  his  hand- writing,  and  given  by  him  to  Purcell,  may  be 
read. 

The  paper  was  then  read  as  follows  : — 

"  RECIPE  TO  PLATE    COPPER  OR,  ETC. 

"  File  up  some  silver  very  small,  add  to  as  much  aquafortice  as  shall 
cover  the  silver,  then  simper  them  in  a  tea  cup  for  2  mts.  then  add  to 
a  small  quantity  Crame  a  tartar,  then  dip  in  your  cork  and  sd.  plate 
— then  boil  them  in  salt  and  water,  till  you  see  them  gro  whyte,  then 
rub  them  with  Crame  a  tartar." 

"  A  MIXTURE  OF  MINERALS  THAT  SHALL  EQUAL  SILVER. 

"  Take  I  lb.  of  long  graind  tin — Do.  of  Rock  solder,  or  whyte 
Spilter,  1  lb.  of  Block  tin. 

"  N.B.  to  be  melted  all  to  Gether  &  to  be  poured  into  a  point  of 
vinigeear,  a  dram  of  Suppliment — ;jlb.  of  pine  top  ashes — this  is  not 
to  be  melted  more  than  1  time  in  the  above  mixture  of  waters. 

"  N.B.  the  Liqur.  must  Be  Avaram." 

"  For  melting  minerals  you  must  have  white-rock-asnick  to  extract 
silver  from  copper  you  must  have  sadcramonick. 

"  Rigt.  Ilonob.  the  Countess 
Merculer-watter 
Venegar  &  pine  top  ashes." 


PATRICK  FINNEy.  575 

Margaret  Moore  sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  At  Stradbally  in  the  Queen's  County, 
about  forty  miles  from  this. 

Q.  Pray,  Mrs.  Moore,  do  you  know  James  O'Brien  ?  A.  I  did 
know  a  James  O'Brien,  who  lived  in  Stradbally,  and  was  reared  and 
born  there. 

Q.  Do  yovi  know  his  general  character?    A.  I  do  since  he  was  born. 

Q.  In  Avhat  line  of  life  are  you  ?  A.  I  am  living  in  an  industrious 
situation,  in  a  shop  in  Stradbally. 

Q.  Are  you  a  married  woman  ?     A.  I  am  a  married  woman. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  general  character  of  that  James  O'Brien  ? 
A.  I  knew  his  general  character  until  he  came  to  Dublin,  and  have 
heard  a  great  deal  of  it  since. 

Q.  From  your  knowledge  of  his  general  character,  do  you  believe 
he  is  deserving  of  credit  upon  his  oath  ?  A.  During  the  time  I  knew 
him,  in  his  father's  life-time,  until  he  came  to  manhood,  I  would  not 
give  a  groat  for  his  oath,  and  that  is  enough  at  present. 

Q.  Do  you  say  for  his  general  character,  that  he  is  not  deserving  of 
credit  ?     A.  I  do,  if  I  were  to  die  for  it  this  moment. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  were  arrested  at  any  time  by  any 
body  ?  A.  I  do ;  he  come  to  me  in  the  morning,  and  asked  me  was  I 
ready  to  come  to  Dublin — I  told  him  I  was  not,  because  I  did  not 
choose  to  go  in  his  company — he  then  said,  his  wife  and  he  were  com- 
ing off — they  went  on  the  Monday  and  I  came  on  the  Tuesday — the 
least  money  we  have,  we  must  make  the  most  of  it.  I  was  at  Mount- 
joy-square,  and  as  I  was  coming  over  the  bridge,  a  man  came  up  near 
to  me.  I  asked  him  what  was  the  matter — he  asked  me  was  my  name 
Moore — I  said  it  was — he  said  he  had  a  small  demand  against  me — I 
asked  him  at  what  suit — I  tell  the  story  as  well  as  I  can — he  said, 
James  O'Brien — James  O'Biien,  says  I ;  I  know  the  man  right  enough 
— the  dirty  blackguard,  what  demand  has  he  against  me  ?  They 
brought  me  to  the  Tholsel  or  sponging-house,  and  James  O'Brien  came 
to  the  door — I  said,  you  scoundrel,  what  demand  have  you  against  me  ? 
If  you  come  to  a  friend's  house,  I  will  give  you  satisfaction  that  I  do 
not  owe  you  anything.  I  called  to  the  lady  of  the  house,  and  asked 
her  to  keep  two  guineas  for  me  till  I  would  call  next  morning.  I 
came  to  the  Tholsel  next  morning ;  O'Brien  was  there ;  are  you  thei'e, 
my  gentleman  ?  says  I — you  see  I  am,  says  he — very  well,  says  I,  I 
must  know  how  I  owe  you  this  money.  I  took  out  a  summons  for 
him.  Then  the  sitting  justice  said,  where  do  you  live  ? — I  reside 
forty  miles  from  this,  said  I,  and  I  gave  O'Brien  the  lie,  not  minding 
what  I  said.  The  magistrate,  offended,  said,  I  had  given  the  lie,  and 
he  tore  the  order,  and  that  was  all ;  and  I  hope  I  have  said  enough. 
The  bailiff  told  me  at  another  time  that  I  hindered  him  of  getting  at 
the  money. 

Q.  That  money  was  ordered  back  to  you  ?     A,  It  was. 

Q.  (By  the   Court TVHiat  house  was   this   money   deposited   in  ? 

A.  The  house  where  I  was  lodged — the  sponging-house.) 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  been  in  Dublin  before  this  ?     A.  I  cannot 
tell. 


576  TRIAL    OP 

Q.  You  have  been  very  often  ?  A.  I  have  been  two  or  three  times 
a-year. 

Q.  You  have  been  acquainted  with  the  sitting  justices  ?  A.  For 
a  part. 

Q.  You  have  been  acquainted  with  them  before  this  time  ?  A.  I 
never  was  before  him  before  that  time. 

Q.  What  is  your  husband's  name  ?     A.  Kelly. 

Q.  Where  does  he  live  ?  A.  Near  Mountniellick,  in  a  gentleman's 
service. 

Q.  How  long  is  it  since  you  and  he  have  been  apart  from  each 
other  ?  A.  I  see  him  as  often  as  I  can :  he  lived  with  Mr.  Cassan  of 
Sheffield,  and  it  was  Mr.  Fletcher  brought  him  there. 

Q.  Did  not  O'Brien  think  you  were  married  ?  A.  He  did  not  see 
me  married,  but  I  believe  he  thought  I  was  married. 

Q.  How  long  ai'e  you  married  ?     A.  Thirty-three  years. 

Q.  And  knowing  that  you  were  a  married  woman,  O'Brien  had 
you  arrested.  Did  you  tell  the  sitting  justice  you  were  married  ? 
A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  take  a  journey  to  Kilkenny  ?     A.  Me  1 

Q.  By  virtue  of  your  oath  ?     A.  I  did  live  at  Kilkenny. 

Q.  How  long  ago  ?     A.  Twelve  years  ago. 

Q.  You  went  to  live  there  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  From  Stradbally?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  what  reason  ?  A.  I  had  a  son  bound  'prentice  to  a  shoe- 
maker, one  Speare,  and  I  had  some  friends  of  the  name  of  Fitzpatrick, 
and  I  went  there. 

Q.  Was  there  no  charge  against  you  in  Stradbally  ?  A.  No ;  I 
never  heard  of  any. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  live  with  a  man  of  the  name  of  Archbold  ?  A. 
Me! 

Q.  In  the  way  of  service,  I  mean  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  of  that  name,  or  Ashbold  ?  A.  My  hus- 
band lived  with  a  gentleman  of  that  name. 

Q.  Was  there  a  charge  against  you  respecting  curtains  ?  A. 
Against  me  !  I  have  never  heard  of  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Is  thei'e  a  woman  of  the  name  of  Walker  in  Stradbally? 
A.  There  is— Molly  Walker. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  about  butter,  bacon,  or  such  articles 
being  stolen  ?     A.  I  never  stole  any. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  a  charge  made  about  it  ?  Your  husband  knew 
this  man  O'Brien  as  well  as  you  did  ?     A.  No  he  does  not. 

Q.  You  live  in  the  town  of  Stradbally  ?     A.  I  do  ;  and  honestly. 

Q.  What  rent  do  you  pay  ?     A.  Eight  guineas  a-year 

Q.  What  have  you  for  that  ?     A.  I  have  a  house  with  a  shop. 

Q.  What  commodities  do  you  deal  in  ?  A.  In  crockery-ware  and 
delft,  when  I  can  touch  it — tea,  sugar,  eggs,  and  bread,  and  every- 
thing I  can  put  my  hand  to,  and  make  a  penny  by. 

Q.  You  put  a  hand  to  anything  you  meet  ?  A.  I  do  in  that  line 
— not  in  any  other. 

[Here  the  jury  desired  she  might  point  out  O'Brien,  which  she 
did,  saying,  "  that  is  the  very  identical  lad."] 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  this  man  being  examined  as  a  witness 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  5t7 

before  ?  A.  No  ;  I  knew  nothing  about  him  but  what  I  told 
you. 

Q.  How  long  since  you  were  arrested  ?  A.  Last  May  twelve- 
month. 

Q.  Did  you  travel  with  him  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  You  were  very  intimate  with  him  ?  A.  No ;  not  any  more 
than  any  other — I  kept  him  oif  as  well  as  I  could. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  eat  or  drink  together  ?  A.  I  never  drank  a  drop 
of  tea  with  his  wife  in  my  life. 

Q.  How  came  this  man  to  propose  to  you  to  come  to  town  if  you 
were  not  intimate  ?  How  came  it  to  be  planned  and  settled  and 
agreed  upon  between  you  ? 

Mr.  Curb  AN. — She  said  no  such  thing. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  he  thought  you  would  be  to  town  with  him  ? 
A.  Well,  suppose  so — I  will  not  say  any  more. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  he  thought  you  Avould  be  to  town  with  him  ? 
A.  I  will  not  answer  any  more. 

Q.  You  must.  A.  He  called  in  the  morning,  and  I  said  I  was  not 
ready,  and  he  went  off  by  himself. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  he  thought  you  would  be  with  him  ?  A.  I  do 
not  know  whether  he  thought  so  or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  say  so  ?  A.  I  do  not  know :  he  said  one  Nalty  and 
himself  were  going  to  town,  and  I  said  I  could  not  go. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again,  were  you  not  upon  such  terms  that  he  proposed 
to  travel  with  you  ?  A.  I  Avould  come  with  others  I  thought  less 
about. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Stradbally  ?  A.  Since  I  was  born 
— I  have  been  thirty-three  years  keeping  house. 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  person  of  the  Queen's  County  here  ?  A.  I 
do — Mr.  Gray,  Mr.  Greaves,  and  Mr.  Dunn. 

Q.  They  are  witnesses  along  with  you  ?  A.  No  ;  they  were  here 
before. 

John  Clarke  examined. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?     A.  At  the  "  Blue-bell." 

Q.  Do  you  mean  in  the  county  of  Dublin  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  there  ?     A.   Since  I  was  born. 

Q.  What  business  ?     A.  A  bleacher. 

Q.  Any  other  ?     A.  The  public  business. 

Q.  Do  you  know  James  O'Brien  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Would  you  know  him  now  if  you  saw  him  ?  A.  There  is  the 
man. 

Q.  What  business  does  he  follow  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  tell  you  what  business  he  followed  ?  A.  No ;  but 
he  came  to  me  as  a  revenue  officer. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  that  ?  A.  By  pulling  out  a  pocket-book  and 
some  paper,  and  I  being  simple  thought  him  an  officer. 

Q.  To  what  place  did  he  come  ?     A.  To  my  house. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  the  paper  was  ?  A.  He  demanded  my 
licence  from  me,  and  I  did  not  know  but  he  might  be  an  officer. 

Q.  (By  the  Court What  papers  did  he  pull  out  ?     A.  He  pulled 

out  a  paper  as  for  a  licence  ;  he  said  he  would  run  me  to  seventeen 

2  p 


578  TKIAL   OF 

pounds  expense.  I  gave  him  two  and  twopence,  and  twelve  pence  in 
halfpence.) 

Q.  At  that  time  did  he  say  for  Avhat  he  would  run  you  to  the 
expense  ?  A.  For  selling  spirits  without  licence.  I  did  not  know 
but  he  was  the  right  person. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  supposing  him  the  right  person  ?  A.  I 
did  not  know  but  he  was  a  real  officer. 

Q.  What  happened  there  ?  A.  He  came  three  or  four  days  after, 
demanding  more  money. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — What  did  you  give  him  the  three  shillings  for? 

A.  On  his  demanding  a  licence.  Afterwards  he  came  and  said,  if 
I  gave  him  half  a  guinea  he  would  not  trouble  me  again,  nor  suflfer 
anybody  else.) 

Q.   So  you  gave  him  two  sums  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  he  sober  when  he  came  to  you  in  this  manner  ?  A.  He 
was,  and  pleaded  poverty  ;  and  he  wanted  shoes,  and  desired  me  to 
assist  him. 

Q.  Had  he  been  acquainted  with  you  before  ?  A.  I  never  saw 
him  before  he  came  to  me  in  this  character  of  an  officer. 

Q.  If  O'Brien  said  he  never  passed  as  a  revenue  officer,  would  he 
swear  true  ?     A.  No  ;  he  passed  as  a  revenue  officer  to  me. 

Q.  And  he  was  sober  ?     A.  He  was. 

Q.  Did  you  give  that  money  as  civility-money  to  an  officer  ?  A.  I 
gave  it  in  fear,  to  tell  the  truth,  for  he  said  he  would  take  the  bed 
from  under  me. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  You  keep  a  public-house  at  the  Blue-bell  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  ?     A.  Two  years. 

Q.  Have  you  not  sold  liquor  more  than  two  years  ?  A.  I  have 
kept  the  opposite  house  twelve  years  ago. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  sold  liquor  ?  A.  I  sold  liquor  in  James's- 
street ;  I  have  sold  malt  and  huxtery. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  malt  liquor  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  sell  any  little  spirits  in  that  time  ?  A.  I  am  a  working 
man,  and  keep  a  bottle  for  myself. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — He  is  not  bound  to  answer  these  questions. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain He  is  not  bound  to  answer  them,  but 

may  if  he  choose. 

Q.  Pray,  did  O'Brien  ever  drink  at  your  house  ?  A.  Not  to  my 
knowledge,  barring  a  draft  of  malt. 

Q.  Have  you  always  had  a  licence  for  selling  liquor  ? 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — He  is  not  bound  to  answer. 

Q.  O'Brien  called  at  your  house  and  showed  you  a  paper,  and  told 
you  he  would  charge  you  with  selling  liquor  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  He  said  he  would  prosecute  you  ?  A.  He  said  he  would  bring 
the  army  and  take  the  bed  from  me. 

Q.  Did  he  not  threaten  to  prosecute  you  if  you  did  not  give 
him  money  ?  A.  He  said  he  would  bring  the  army  there ;  and  I  gave 
him  two  and  two-pence  in  silver  and  twelve-pence  in  brass. 

Q.  And  you  have  been  a  publican  in  James's-street  and  at  the 
Blue-bell,  and  you  were  threatened  by  a  man,  saying  he  would  bring 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  579 

the  army  upon  you.    Did  you  see  a  summons  ?     A.  I  do  not  know 

I  cannot  read. 

Q.  Did  he  not  threaten  to  prosecute  you?  A.  He  did  sure 
enough. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  tell  this  story  to  anybody  ?  A.  Immediately 
after  it  happened. 

Q.  To  whom?     A.  To  my  neighbours. 

Q.  Mention  them  ?     A.  To  John  Hanlon  of  the  Bleach-green. 

Q.  Did  you  see  O'Brien  since  that  ?      A.  I  did,  in  James's-street. 

Q.  Is  there  not  a  justice  of  peace  near  you?     A.  There  is. 

Q.  Did  you  complain  to  him  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  tell  Hanlon  of  the  Bleach-green  ?  A.  I 
told  it  often. 

Q.  You  were  afraid  O'Brien  would  prosecute  you.  You  know 
Cavanagh  of  the  Red-cow  ?     A.  I  do — he  is  here. 

Q.  You  have  often  talked  with  Cavanagh  about  this  matter  ?  A. 
We  have. 

Q.  How  often  within  these  four  months  ?  A.  I  met  Cavanagh 
upon  his  own  ground,  and  he  talked  to  me  often. 

Q.  How  came  you  here  to-day  ?     A.  I  came  here  to  tell  the  truth. 

Q.  Did  you  come  here  of  yourself?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  heard  Finney  was  to  be  on  his  trial  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  what  of  O'Brien  ?    A.  I  heard  he  was  under  a  bad  character. 

Q.  And  what  made  you  come  here ;  from  a  point  of  conscience 
and  justice  ?     A.  Yes,  without  fee  or  reward. 

Q.  And  how  came  you  to  come  here  without  fee  or  reward  ?  A. 
To  tell  the  truth. 

Q.  What  invited  you  ?     A.  Nothing  more. 

Q.  You  heard,  by  account,  that  Finney  was  to  be  tried  ?    A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  out  of  justice  you  came,  hearing  of  this  trial — and  that  is 
truth?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  the  whole  truth  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  do  you  know  Finney  ?     A.  I  do  not  know  him. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — Were  you  summoned  ?     A.  I  was.) 

Q.  When  were  you  summoned  ?     A.  This  day. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  day  ?     A.  No,  I  was  summoned  yesterday. 

Q.  When  before  ?     A.  Yesterday  week. 

Q.  When  before  that  ?     A.  I  cannot  recollect. 

Q.  And  to  whom  did  you  mention  this  matter  befoi'e  ?  A.  I  do 
not  know. 

Q.  You  came  of  your  own  accord  for  a  man  you  do  not  knoAV  ? 
Can  you  tell  me  how  you  came  to  be  summoned  ?     A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Nor  have  no  guess  about  it  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Have  you  a  great  resort  of  company  to  your  house  ?  A.  No, 
very  few. 

Q.  An  odd  meeting  of  a  Saturday  night  ?  A.  No  ;  but  a  few  of 
my  own  workmen. 

Q,  (By  the  Jury Did  O'Brien  say  he  was  a  revenue  officer?     A. 

He  did.) 

William  Dunn  sworn. 
Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?     A.  At  No.  57,  Dame-street. 


580  TRIAL   OF 

Q.  What  is  vour  way  of  life  ?  A.  Shopkeeper  to  Mr.  Butler  at 
present. 

Q.  Do  vou  know  James  O'Brien  ?  A.  I  know  James  O'Brien  of 
the  old  mill  near  Stradbally. 

Q.  Look  about  and  try  if  you  see  him  ?     A.  This  is  the  man. 

Q.  Have  you  known  him  long  ?     A.  Since  he  was  a  child. 

Q.  Have  you  known  his  pei'son  and  character  ?  A.  Since  his 
father's  death. 

Q.  From  your  knowledge  of  his  general  character,  do  you  think  he 
deserves  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath  in  a  court  of  j  ustice  ?  A. 
"Why,  indeed,  and  upon  my  oath,  I  would  not  take  his  oath,  nor  believe 
his  oath  for  anv  small  matter. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mrs.  Moore  who  was  on  the  table  a  while  ago  ? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  (By  the  Court. — "^Tiat  do  you  mean  by  saying  you  would  not 
take  his  oath  for  a  small  matter  ?  A.  That  I  would  not  take  it  for 
three-pence,  or  anything  at  all.    I  would  not  believe  him.) 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  this  man  being  examined  in  a  court  of 
justice  before  ?     A.  No  :  it  is  from  other  matters  I  form  my  opinion. 

Patrick  Cavanagh  sworn. 

Q.  What  business  do  you  follow  ?     A.  A  farmer. 

Q.  What  else  ?     A.  I  keep  a  carrier's  inn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?     A.  At  Inchieore. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  Red-cow  ?     A.  Yes,  I  keep  that  house. 

Q.  Do  you  know  James  O'Brien  ?  A.  I  have  seen  him  several 
times. 

Q.  Would  you  know  him  ?     A.  I  believe  I  would. 

Q.  Do  you  see  him  there  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  (here  O'Brien  was 
pointed  out  to  the  witness) — I  think  that  is  the  man. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  his  ever  coming  to  your  house  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  passed  ?  A.  He  came  to  my  house  and  said  he  was  sta- 
tioned in  the  walk  ;  I  thought  Fitzpatrick  was  the  man  ;  no,  said  he ; 
why  then,  said  I,  he  was  here  yesterday  ;  then,  said  he,  Fitzpatrick  is 
to  show  me  the  way  till  I  am  acquainted  with  it. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  anything  from  you  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  Was  he  very  drunk  ?     A.  No  :  he  was  very  sober,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  he  come  to  you  again  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  passed  that  time  ?  A.  He  came  to  the  cellar,  and  there 
was  a  hogshead  of  beer  and  one  of  porter,  and  he  turned  the  cock 
and  examined.  He  asked  me  to  lend  him  fourpence,  which  I  did, 
and  gave  him  his  breakfast.  He  then  summoned  me,  and  a  man  came 
to  me  and  said — he  was  sorry  for  me  ;  why  ?  said  I ;  because,  said  he, 
you  have  a  large  family,  and  God  help  you  when  he  gets  the  book 
into  his  hands. 

Q.  Did  anything  further  pass  ?  A.  Yes ;  I  went  to  the  justice. 
A  man  desired  me  to  make  it  up ;  I  said  I  would,  rather  than  be  in 
such  hands.  I  was  told  he  said  I  assaulted  him.  I  said,  if  giving 
him  his  breakfast  was  an  assault,  I  assaulted  him. 

Q.  Did  you  make  it  up  ?     A.  I  did,  when  I  saw  him  the  next  day. 


PATRICK  FINNEY-  581 

Q.  What  money  did  you  give  him  before  that  time?  A.  All 
I  had. 

Q.  How  much  was  that  ?     A.  Two  guineas  and  some  change. 

Q.  For  an  assault  never  committed.  Did  you  ever  assault  him  ? 
A.  Never,  by  my  oath. 

Q.  Is  O'Brien  a  man  that  ought  to  have  credit  upon  his  oath  in  a 
court  of  justice  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  him,  but  what  I  have  told 
you. 

George  Howell  sworn. 

Q.  What  is  your  situation  in  life  ?     A.  Clerk  in  a  public  office. 

Q.  What  office  ?     A.  Justice  AVilson's  office. 

Q.  Do  you  know  James  O'Brien  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  go  to  your  office  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  Upon  what  occasion  ?  A.  He  came  there  one  morning  ;  Mr. 
Wilson  was  not  there ;  he  wanted  summonses  for  persons  who  sold 
liquor  without  licences.  I  asked  in  what  walk.  He,  mentioned  the 
Cow  and  Calf,  and  Fox  and  Geese ;  I  asked  him  what  was  become 
of  Fitzpatrick,  whom  I  knew ;  he  said  he  was  tiu'ned  out,  and  that 
he  supplied  his  place ;  I  said  there  were  not  summonses  enough — ■ 
sometimes  we  have  one  or  two,  sometimes  twenty.  He  took  out  a 
large  pocket-book,  and  said  he  had  plenty  from  the  commissioners  of 
the  revenue  and  Mr.  Swan.  I  did  not  see  the  fellow  for  some  days 
after.  I  met  Fitzpatrick  in  some  days  after,  and  expressed  my 
sorrow  that  he  was  turned  out.  He  asked  me  who  told  it ;  I  said 
O'Brien.  The  greatest  rascal  and  informer  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth,  he  said.  We  met  him  near  Bishop-street,  and  I  asked  him 
about  it,  and  he  ran  up  Bishop-street,  and  I  never  saw  the  fellow 
since  that  time  to  this. 

Q.  Was  he  sober  ?     A.  Perfectly  ;  it  was  ten  o'clock  in  the  day. 

William  Byrne  sworn. 

Q.  Did  you  see  a  man  of  the  name  of  Clarke  in  court  to-day  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  before  ?     A.  Yesterday. 

Q.  How  was  he  dressed?     A.  In  a  short  jacket,  in  scarlet. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  yesterday  ?  A.  In  court  standing 
there. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  swear  he  was  not  in  court  yesterday  ?  A.  I 
did,  which  is  the  cause  of  my  coming  forward  in  this  manner. 

Q.  Did  he  swear  true  ?     A.  He  did  not. 

Bernard  Cummins  sworn. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  How  long  ?     A.  Many  years. 

Q.  What  business  do  you  foUow  ?     A.  The  tobacco  business. 

Q.  What  is  his  general  character  ?  A.  I  never  heard  anything 
improper  of  him. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear,  until  the  present  charge,  of  his  loyalty  being 
impeached?     A.  Never. 

Q.  (By  the  Court Did  he  work  with  you  ?     A.  He  did. 

Q.  How  long  ?     A.  Many  months.) 


582  TRIAL    OF 


Cx'oss-examined. 


Q.  Was  there  ever  any  charge  made  against  you  ?     A.  No. 
Q.  Were  you  ever  taken  up  on  any  charge  ?     A.  No. 
Case  rested  for  the  prisoner. 

Peter  Clarke  called  up  again  on  the  part  of  the  crown. 

Q.  When  you  were  upon  the  table  befoi-e,  you  said  you  were  not 
in  court  yestei'day  ?     A.  I  made  a  mistake  being  so  puzzled. 
Q.  Were  you  here  yesterday  ?     A.  I  was. 
Q.  Did  Mr.  Ivemmis  send  to  you  ?     A.  He  did. 
Q.  Was  it  to  come  or  stay  from  court  ?     A.  To  come  to  court. 
Q.  Did  you  come  ?     A.  I  did. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  that  Mr.  Kemmis  desired  you  not  to  come  ? 
A.  I  did,  being  puzzled,  and  I  did  not  know  anything  of  law. 

Q.  Then  not  being  a  gi'eat  lawyer,  you  came  here  and  said  you  did    1 
not  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  upon  the  table  before  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  Then  you  are  not  so  simple  in  the  business  ?  A.  I  never 
swore  wrong  before. 

Q.  You  swore  against  one  Lynch  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  he  found  guilty  ?     A.  No. 

Mr.  Attorney-Gteneral. — The  court  have  been  pleased  to  ask, 
to  what  overt  acts  we  apply  this  evidence.  I  say,  my  lords,  we  apply 
it  to  all  the  overt  acts :  first,  that  he  became  a  member  of  the  society 
of  United  Irishmen — there  is  evidence  of  that ;  that  he  confederated 
with  them  to  assist  the  French ;  that  he  with  others  consulted  and 
agreed  to  send  persons  into  France,  to  invite  the  French  to  invade 
this  kingdom. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain I  do  not  think  the  evidence  supports 

that.     But,  in  short,  you  think  there  is  evidence  to  go  to  all  the  overt 
acts. 

Mr.  Attorney-General — My  lord,  I  do. 

Mr.  CuRRAN. — My  lords  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I  did  imagine 
in  the  early  part  of  this  trial,  that  I  should  have  to  rise  to  address 
you  upon  the  most  important  and  awful  occasion  that  can  happen  on 
this  side  the  grave ;  and  that  is,  when  the  defence  of  a  man  labouring 
for  liberty,  for  life,  for  everything  that  can  be  dear  to  a  human  being, 
depends  upon  the  casual  sti-ength  of  an  exhausted,  and  at  best  not 
a  very  feeble  advocate.  But,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  now  pretend  to 
say,  that  I  rise  under  any  of  these  burdens.  I  do  not  rise  poor  and 
enfeebled — I  affect  no  such  despicable  humility.  I  rise  not  to  under- 
mine your  judgments,  or  to  awaken  your  compassion.  But  I  rise  up 
with  whatever  there  is  of  law,  of  constitution,  of  conscience  in  the 
realm  at  my  back,  and  standing  in  the  front  of  this  all-powerful 
alliance,  I  do  demand  your  verdict  of  acquittal  for  my  client ;  and  I 
will  show  you  that  this  case  is  that  kind  of  despicable  tissue  which 
requires  no  force  to  break  it.  In  walking  by  it,  it  vanishes  into  air, 
and  is  sundered  into  tatters. 

I  did  feel,  gentlemen,  an  observation  made  by  the  right  honourable 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  583 

gentleman  who  stated  this  case  for  the  crown,  made  in  the  spirit  of  a 
kindness  which  for  a  number  of  years  has  filled  me  with  much  grati- 
tude, and  reflected  no  little  credit  upon  me.  He  has  been  pleased  to 
say,  that  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  would  address  the  court  and 
you  with  the  same  spirit  of  candour  which  he  did  upon  the  part  of  the 
crown.  Gentlemen,  I  accept  of  the  observation  made  by  that  highly- 
respected  counsel  with  the  more  confidence,  because  mine  own  heart 
tells  me  it  is  sound  and  honest.  I  know  not  the  situation  in  human 
life  in  which  the  humble  abilities  of  any  man  can  be  so  gloriously 
exerted,  as  in  endeavouring  to  give  an  honest  defence  to  a  fellow- 
subject  labouring  for  his  character  and  his  life.  If  there  be  any  sub- 
lunary situation  in  which  a  human  being  can  be  engaged,  that  can  be 
supposed  to  attract  the  eye  of  heaven,  it  is  where  God  looks  down 
upon  one  human  creature  defending  the  life  of  another  against  human 
turpitude — a  life  which  God  himself  has  endeavoured  to  defend  by 
his  awful  canon  — "  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy 
neighbour  ;"  and,  "  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder." 

Gentlemen,  let  me  deserve  that  kind  observation  which  the  counsel 
for  the  crown  has  been  pleased  to  make — let  me  reason  fairly  and 
coolly  upon  this  subject.  Thank  God,  I  cannot !  But  let  me  reason 
unclouded,  though,  I  trust,  not  unwarned  by  the  observation. 

Gentlemen,  the  prisoner  stands  indicted — I  wish  to  state  with  all 
possible  succinctness  and  clearness  the  nature  of  the  charge,  and  I 
am  glad  that  my  learned  colleague  has  done  so  much  before  me — so 
much  so,  that  when  I  repeat  anything  which  he  has  said,  I  run  a  risk 
of  weakening  it  much.  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  paying  compliments 
where  they  are  not  deserved  ;  neither  am  I  in  the  habit  of  receiving 
them  myself.  But  I  trust,  the  honesty  of  his  heart  must  have  gained 
from  you  that  I'espect  and  credit  which  a  statement  flowing  from  a 
clear  judgment  and  an  animated  heart  deserves. 

Gentlemen,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  indicted  for  high  treason. 
The  indictment  contains  two  kinds  of  high  treason,  and  is  founded 
upon  the  declaratory  statute  the  25th  Ed.  III.  The  observation  made 
upon  that  statute  by  my  learned  friend  must  impress  itself  upon  your 
hearts,  that  it  was  made  for  the  protection  of  the  subject  in  cases  where 
no  man  knew  whether  his  life  was  safe  from  the  vague  and  wandering 
uncertainty  of  the  law — when  no  man  knew  Avhether  he  should  lose 
his  life  by  his  own  conduct  or  the  construction  of  crown  lawyers  ; 
therefore  that  statute  was  enacted. 

It  has  been  called  a  blessed  act,  and  may  the  blessings  of  God  give 
repose  and  reward  to  the  souls  of  those  who  made  it !  It  was  made 
to  regulate  the  law  of  treason,  and  it  is  founded  upon  the  principles 
of  justice  and  humanity.  It  enacts  that  no  man  shall  be  convicted 
of  treason,  but  upon  proveable  evidence  of  overt  acts — which  overt 
acts  must  be  clearly  stated  in  the  indictment.  The  meaning  of  the 
statute  is  this,  that  no  man's  life  shall  be  taken  away  upon  allegations, 
that  he  did  an  act  this  way  or  that  by  possibility,  but  a  clear  and 
precise  overt  act  must  be  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury  who 
try  the  charge.  The  statute  does  everything  which  human  foresight 
could  do  to  bring  the  guilty  man  to  judgment,  and  to  save  the  inno- 
cent man  from  death.  I  would  call  it  an  omnipotent  statute,  were  it 
possible  for  the  omnipotency  of  an  act  of  parliament  to  appal  the 


584  TRIAL    OF 

conscience  of  a  remorseless  perjurer  or  drive  him  from  a  court  of 
justice.  But  law  could  not  do  it — religion  could  not  do  it — the  feel- 
ings of  humanity  locked  up  in  a  frozen  and  obdurate  heart,  could  not 
do  it.  It  could  not  prevent  the  arrow  from  being  pointed  at  the  heart 
of  the  accused ;  but  it  has  been  given  a  shield  to  protect  him — ^the 
crime  shall  be  stated  so  clear,  that  no  man  shall  mistake  it — the  acts 
by  which  he  intended  to  elFect  his  Avicked  pui-pose  must  be  stated,  and 
must  be  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury — he  must  be  proveably 
convicted  ?  Are  you  at  a  loss  to  know  it  ?  Does  it  mean,  that  if  a 
man  should  come  and  say — "  that  is  a  traitor,  and  was  vile  enough 
to  intend  to  kill  the  sacred  person  who  holds  the  reins  of  the  state." 
Is  that  what  is  meant  by  proveably  convicted  ?  that  a  wretch  can 
come  upon  the  table — no  matter  who — the  noble  lord  that  appeared 
this  day — their  lordships  on  the  bench — or  O'Brien  the  informer — 
and  say,  "  by  virtvie  of  my  oath,  the  prisoner  intended  to  kill  the 
King  ;  and  settled  all  the  means  of  doing  it ;  and  bought  the  powder 
and  ball  in  order  to  kill  him  ?"  Is  that  what  you  suppose  by  prove- 
able  evidence  ?  It  is  not  what  the  law  means  :  it  means  that  the 
cogency  of  the  evidence  lays  as  strong  a  hold  of  the  jury,  as  the 
sentence  of  condemnation  does  of  the  prisoner ;  and  they  are  obliged 
to  find  him  guilty  against  the  yearnings  of  human  nature — that  is 
what  the  law  means,  and  that  only.  It  means  not  that  dirty  ribaldry 
that  is  flung  on  him  by  any  man — no,  in  that  abominable  filth  and 
scurrility  which  the  wretch  flings  on  the  intended  victim  of  his 
perjury,  there  is  nothing  deleterious,  but  there  is  something  sapona- 
ceous which  clears  the  character  it  was  intended  to  vilify. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  stated  the  law  of  high  treason  a  little  more 
warmly  than  I  need  have  done ;  but  I  do  not  apologise  for  any 
warmth.  It  is  honest.  I  say  then  the  overt  acts  must  be  laid  and 
proved,  in  the  words  of  the  statute,  by  positive  testimony  from 
untainted  witnesses  ;  the  law  which  I  am  laying  before  you  is  recog- 
nised by  every  writer  on  the  law  of  treason ;  by  the  most  illustrious 
commentators  on  the  laws  of  England.  I  do  not  wonder  they  have 
been  so  often  repeated  ;  the  abandonment  of  these  rules  has  produced 
such  fatal  consequences,  that  no  man  can  lament  them  too  long.  No 
man  viewing  the  constructions  which  had  been  put  on  acts  to  construe 
them  into  treason  ;  no  honest  man  could  ever  think  he  had  done 
enough  to  warn  each  successive  court  and  jury,  how  they  suflfered 
themselves  to  be  carried  away  by  those  passions  which  are  disgraceful 
only  when  they  are  not  able  to  hold  the  manly  check  of  judgment 
over  them,  under  the  guidance  of  reason. 

The  charge  upon  which  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  stands  before  you, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  is  two-fold;  that  is,  of  compassing  and 
imagining  the  death  of  the  King,  and  also  of  adhering  to  the  King's 
enemies.  It  is  peculiarly  necessary  that  I  should  be  circumspect  in 
everything  I  shall  say  to  you,  because,  if  I  fall  into  any  errors,  I 
might  be  liable  to  have  them  detected  by  the  counsel,  whose  duty  it 
will  be  to  answer  me.  I  am  sure  it  would  be  in  the  spirit  of  the 
crown  prosecution  ;  and  if  I  was  to  make  any  mistake,  therefore,  it 
could  not  escape  detection  from  that  gentleman.  Gentlemen,  the 
indictment,  as  I  stated  before,  is  founded  on  two  species  of  high 
trea,son ;  compassing  and  imagining  the  death  of  the  King,  and  also 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  58^ 

adliering  to  the  King's  enemies.  To  support  which  charges,  there 
are  no  fewer  than  thirteen  overt  acts,  as  I  have  akeady  described. 
I  will  only  make  a  few  observations  on  them.  It  will  not  be  neces- 
sary for  me  to  go  minutely  through  them  all ;  and  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  prosecution  will  feel  I  am  speaking  with  great  can- 
dour when  I  admit,  that  if  you  were  to  consider  the  evidence  you 
have  heard  as  true,  there  could  be  no  doubt  but  the  indictment  would 
be  supported.  If  the  evidence  was  to  be  believed  by  you,  I  think 
there  could  be  no  doubt  that  the  prisoner  must  be  guilty,  under  some 
one  or  other  of  the  overt  acts  laid  in  the  indictment.  I  do  not 
complain  that  the  counsel  for  the  crown  when  called  upon  by  the, 
learned  judge,  did  not  find  it  expedient  to  point  out  on  which  of  the 
overt  acts  it  was  they  meant  to  rely,  when  I  saw  the  complexion  with 
which  the  evidence  for  the  crown  appeared,  and  the  additional 
complexion  it  received  from  the  evidence  for  the  prisoner.  Mr. 
Attorney- General  was  pleased  to  make  an  observation  which  has 
drawn  a  strong  remark  from  my  learned  colleague  : — Mr.  Attorney- 
General  told  you  that  the  atrocity  of  the  charge  ought  not  to  make 
any  impression  on  your  minds — it  was  a  remark  of  candour  and 
liberality — because,  what  he  meant  was  this,  that  you  are  not  from 
any  impulse  of  loyalty  or  affection  to  the  King,  to  give  credit  to  the 
accusation,  merely  because  it  is  atrocious.  But  the  remark  of  my 
friend  in  answer  to  that  was,  and  in  which  I  fully  concur,  it  was  not 
the  business  of  the  Attorney-General  to  make  the  observation,  but  his 
disposition  will  admit  the  justice  of  it ;  that  the  atrocity  of  the  crime, 
of  any  charge,  is  not  the  reason  why  a  jury  should  give  belief  to  it, 
but  that  they  ought  to  disbelieve  it ;  and  therefore,  the  atrocity  of  the 
charge  ought  to  be  considered  by  a  jury  as  an  improbability  of  the 
truth,  because  the  more  atrocious,  the  more  unlikely. 

I  can  imagine  no  crime  gi'eater  in  a  civilized  state — I  care  not 
whether  it  be  democratical,  or  aristocratical,  or  monarchical,  or  even 
actually  despotic  ;  I  say,  no  ci'inie  can  be  greater,  than  an  attempt  to 
destroy  the  person  who  holds  the  executive  authority  of  the  state — 
far  be  it  from  me  to  conceal  my  abhorrence  of  such  a  crime.  Happy 
am  I,  that  in  the  discharge  of  that  duty  which  I  owe  to  my  client,  I 
am  not  called  upon  to  varnish  over,  or  disguise  a  crime  which  I  abhor, 
but  that  I  can  express  my  opinion  without  involving  the  fate  of  my 
client.  The  defence  of  my  client  is,  that  no  man  feels  a  greater 
abhorrence  of  the  charge  than  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  and  that  he 
feels  himself  as  innocent  of  the  imputation  as  your  own  hearts, 
gentlemen,  do  tell  you  that  you  are. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  the  overt  acts  which  are  charged  against  the 
prisoner,  are  all  very  much  of  the  same  nature  ;  consulting  to  destroy 
the  government ;  entering  into  a  society  for  the  purpose  of  subverting 
the  constitution  ;  calling  in  the  French,  enemies  to  the  King,  for  the 
purposes  stated  in  these  overt  acts.  They  are  overt  acts,  which  very 
much  resemble  each  other  in  their  general  nature,  in  both  counts  of 
the  indictment ;  but  there  is  a  distinction  which  I  feel  of  great 
moment  to  make  to  you,  and  it  is  of  great  moment  indeed.  It  has 
been  not  an  uncommon  expression  in  courts  of  justice  to  say,  that  the 
prosecutor  artfully  did  this,  or  suppressed  that.  I  do  not  like  this 
mode  of   expression.      I    do    not  like  to  make  observations,  when 


586  TRIAL   OF 

they  reflect  upon  the  candour  of  any  man  ;  but  we  have  to  complain, 
that  the  prevaricating  witness  who  appeared  this  day,  has  committed 
a  base  imposition  on  those  gentlemen,  whose  duty  it  was  to  bring 
forward  this  charge  against  the  prisoner ;  to  that,  and  to  that  only, 
do  I  attribute  the  want  of  candour,  which  is  not  to  be  expected  from 
the  informer,  and  I  should  shrink  to  attribute  it  to  any  other  cause. 

You  find,  gentlemen,  at  the  bottom  of  this  charge,  what  I  may  call 
the  foundation-stone  of  it,  laid,  or  endeavoured  to  be  laid,  by  Mr. 
O'Brien,  the  informer  ;  that  there  was  a  deliberate  system  entered 
into  by  a  number  of  persons  calling  themselves  United  Irishmen — 
taking  certain  tests  for  the  purpose  of  committing  the  treasons  charged 
in  the  overt  acts.  I  said  there  was  a  distinction  of  great  moment, 
that  O'Brien  endeavoured  to  hold  out  to  the  pviblic,  to  all  Europe, 
that  he  endeavours  to  disseminate  a  belief,  that  111,000  men  in  the 
province  of  Ulster  alone — to  establish  a  belief  on  his  own  single 
evidence,  that  at  a  time  of  peril  and  calamity  like  the  present,  such 
a  body  of  men,  able  to  defend  their  King,  and  country,  and 
constitution,  against  a  host  of  enemies,  had  combined  against  the 
life  of  that  King,  and  the  tranquillity  of  that  counti-y !  On  that 
point,  it  is  for  you,  gentlemen,  to  consider,  and  to  consider  again  and 
again  (if  there  was  nothing  but  the  name  of  an  Irishman,  so  basely 
aspersed,  at  stake  from  the  insinuation).  I  will  show  you  it  is  a  fact 
of  such  a  nature,  as  is  unworthy  of  belief.  If  there  is  any  fact  stated 
by  that  witness,  which  can  be  deserving  of  belief,  what  is  it  ?  It  can 
only  be,  that  there  is  a  great  combination  of  the  human  mind  upon 
public  subjects ;  and  here  the  distinction  of  materiality  arises  ; 
because  if  there  be  such  a  combination  as  that  described  by  the 
witness,  you  must  take  the  evidence  altogether,  and  consider  the 
paper  produced  in  court  as  a  foundation  of  the  charge.  Do  not  mis- 
take me.  Gentlemen,  I  say,  a  witness  asserting  such  a  fact  as 
O'Brien  has  asserted,  deserves  no  credit  from  you  ;  but  if  you  conceive 
he  does,  you  must  take  the  principles  of  that  combination,  from  that 
kind  of  institution  which  has  been  read  in  court.  I  will  state  to  you 
what  it  is ;  it  is  to  get  rid  of  religious  animosities.  Would  to  God  it 
were  possible  to  be  done  !  You  will  see,  gentlemen,  from  what  I  am 
going  to  do,  that  am  I  stating  the  facts  fairly.  The  next  object  is 
parliamentary  reform ;  if  that  be  an  oifence,  the  text  is  full  of  it ;  it 
needs  no  comment  of  mine.  The  last  is  that  of  secrecy.  Gentlemen, 
in  the  heai'ing  of  the  court,  I  do  submit  the  question  to  the  counsel 
for  the  crown  ;  I  do  make  this  appeal  to  the  bench,  to  the  bar,  to  you, 
gentlemen  of  the  jury,  Avhether,  take  that  obligation  in  the  words  of  it, 
there  is  anything  treasonable  ?  It  needs  no  argument  to  show  you 
there  is  nothing  in  it  of  treason.  I  would  make  myself  ridiculous 
were  I  to  say,  that  however  taken  there  might  be  no  treason  in  it. 
There  may  be  a  colourable  combination  for  anything,  and  the  real 
purpose  be  concealed.  What  is  the  law  of  England  ?  What  was 
the  opinion  of  the  very  able  court  that  presided  at  the  late  trials  for 
constructive  treasons  in  England  ?  It  is  this — "  strong  must  that 
proof  be,  which  goes  to  show  that  the  paper*  bear  any  internal  import 
from  what  they  seem  to  bear ;  that  they  seem  to  apply  to  one  pvu-pose, 
and  mean  another." 

If  the  tests  of  any  combination  were  open,  suppose  the  tests  of 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  587 

the  Corresponding  Society  in  England,  there  might  be  a  reason  for 
concealing  their  meaning,  if  anything  bad  were  intended,  in  words 
which  could  not  attach  guilt  to  them  ;  but,  is  a  paper,  not  subject  to 
public  discussion,  subject  to  no  public  investigation,  to  be  worded  in 
the  same  manner  ?  It  is  ridiculous  to  say  that,  if  1 1 1 ,000  men  meet 
secretly  to  hatch  treason  and  treasonable  conspiracies,  they  will 
express  their  intentions  in  words,  not  bearing  such  meaning,  but  will 
take  an  oath  of  another  import !  Do  you  think  it  common  sense  that 
if  men  meet  and  deliberate  on  sending  persons  to  France,  or  murder- 
ing the  people,  or  overturning  the  constitution,  or  for  any  of  those 
purposes  form  a  guilty  combination,  they  would  take  an  engagement 
for  something  totally  diiFerent  from  that  which  is  the  real  intention 
of  their  combination  ?     "What  purpose  could  it  answer  ? 

Gentlemen,  I  have  stated  the  proposition  abstractedly  taken,  that 
upon  the  written  paper  there  is  nothing  treasonable.  But  I  admit  it 
may  be  the  foundation  of  a  treasonable  purpose.  I  am  well  aware 
that  a  man  taking  that  obligation,  will  not  be  prevented  by  it  from 
becoming  a  traitor  if  he  chooses  ;  he  may,  if  he  be  base  enough,  make 
an  attempt  upon  the  sacred  person  of  the  King  ;  no  oath  or  test  can 
prevent  a  man  becoming  a  traitor.  But,  the  question  for  you  to 
decide  upon  is,  whether  there  was,  independently  of  that  engagement, 
(and  there  is  no  evidence  that  I  recollect) — I  say,  the  great  and  only 
question  for  your  consideration  is,  have  there  been  any  treasonable  pur- 
poses proved  by  the  witness,  O'Brien,  against  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

I  have  told  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  Avords  of  the  statute  of  the 
25th  of  Edward  III.  on  which  this  indictment  is  grounded,  are,  that 
it  shall  be  proveably  evinced  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury  that  the 
prisoner  is  guilty  of  the  treason  charged  upon  him  ;  what  is  the  evi- 
dence produced  to  support  that  ?  Mr.  O'Brien.  What  has  he  stated 
to  you  ?  And  here  I  beseech  you  let  me  have  the  benefit  of  that 
circumstance  (as  much  as  fools  may  abuse  these  countries) — let  me 
have  that  benefit,  that  privilege  which  distinguishes  the  trial  by  jury 
from  all  other  modes  of  trial  in  the  woi'ld.  Twelve  men  from  the 
walks  of  common  life,  acquainted  with  the  human  character  in  all  its 
progressions,  not  emerging  from  the  must  and  cobwebs  of  a  study,  nor 
abstracted  from  human  nature,  where  they  may  come  without  vision  to 
make  them  discern  the  distinction  between  the  sincerity  and  insincerity 
of  the  human  character.  I  call  upon  you  to  let  me  have  the  full  benefit  of 
that  particular  distinction  of  these  countries — the  trial  by  jury.  Look 
carefully,  and  weigh  the  probability  of  the  story : — "  I  was  going 
through  the  street,"  says  O'Brien,  "  I  met  Hyland."  "  Are  you  up  ?" 
says  Hyland — "  are  you  up  ?  You  will  be  murdered  before  you  go 
half  a  street  if  you  do  not  become  an  United  Irishman."  Gentlemen, 
some  of  you  are  younger  men  than  I  am ;  but  you  are  all  old  enough 
to  form  an  opinion  upon  the  truth  of  this  story.  Do  you  think  it 
probable  ?  Suppose  any  of  you  were  of  the  society  of  United  Ii'ishmen, 
or  Freemasons,  or  Friendly  Brothers,  and  suppose  you  were  walking 
along  and  met  me,  would  you  say — "  Come  in  here ;  are  you  a  Friendly 
Brother  or  a  Freemason  ?"  "  No."  "  Then  come  in  here,  or  you  will 
be  murdered  before  you  get  half  up  the  street."  Do  you  think  that 
likely  ?  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a  man  tempted  to  commit  a  felony  of 
death  under  a  temptation  of  that  kind  ?     Such  a  coaxing  of  the 


588  TRIAL  OF 

native  simplicity  of  O'Brien.  "  Sweet  Mr.  O'Brien,  come  in,  or  your 
precious  life  will  be  taken  away  before  you  get  half  the  street." 
What  a  loss  he  would  have  been  to  his  King,  if  he  ventured  to  go 
away  without  becoming  an  United  Irishman  !  All  this  in  the  street. 
He  could  not  call  out  for  assistance  ;  his  members  refused  their  office ; 
his  feet  were  incorporated  with  the  paving  stones ;  he  could  not  run ; 
he  went  in,  and  what  happened  there  ?  Why,  he  meets  a  number  of 
people  ;  one  goes  to  one  door,  and  another  goes  to  another,  and  the 
first  ci-ies  out — "  Secure  the  doors  from  this  bloody-minded  rogue,  that 
will  not  save  his  own  precious  life  by  becoming  an  United  Irishman." 
Did  you  ever  hear  anything  like  it  in  common  life  ?  He  took  a  book 
in  his  hand  after  he  went  in,  and  supposing  his  life  would  be  taken 
away  if  he  had  not  gone  in,  he  takes  the  United  Irishman's  oath ;  but 
that  is  not  all  ;  this  oath  must  be  washed  down  ;  and,  lest  he  throw 
it  off  his  stomach,  why,  they  fill  him  up  to  the  neck  with  beef  and 
whiskey.  He  would  have  gone  to  make  discovery  of  this ;  but  he 
was  drunk.  Did  he  go  the  next  morning  ?  No  ;  he  was  sick  ;  but 
his  loyalty  returning  with  his  stomach,  they  came  to  him,  as  soon 
as  light  appeared,  and  made  him  drunk  again.  Poor  fellow  !  his  mis- 
fortune saved  his  life.  He  was  sworn  in  an  United  Irishman,  and  to 
that  he  charges  all  his  distresses.  Poor,  innocent,  sober  James 
O'Bi'ien  was  made  drunk  two  days  successively ;  so  that  he  was  not 
only  sworn  against  his  will  to  save  his  life,  but  he  was  made  drunk 
against  his  inclination  !  He  would  have  gone  to  lodge  his  sorrows  in 
the  sympathetic  bosom  of  the  major  ;  but  he  was  prevented  ;  for  they 
made  him  drunk  again.  He  did  not  go  to  discover  the  third  day ;  he 
was  drunk.  At  last  he  went  to  a  justice  of  peace,  and  then,  gentle- 
men, his  loyalty  is  better  than  his  memory  or  his  sobriety.  What 
does  he  do  ?  He  goes  to  make  a  discovery,  and  in  the  force  of  his 
loyalty,  becomes  a  prophet.  I  am  holding  out  a  strong  vindication  of 
his  character,  because,  what  did  he  do  ?  He  stated  what  occurred 
three  weeks  before  it  happened.  He  went  to  Lord  Portarlington, 
and  what  does  he  do  ?  He  tells  his  lordship  of  a  circumstance  that 
did  not  happen  for  three  weeks  after.  Honest  James  O'Brien  !  be- 
cause he  could  keep  nothing  secret,  and  in  letting  out  the  truth,  he 
tells  that  which  he  knew  nothing  about  at  the  time !  Let  others  argue 
on  logical  truth,  or  ethical  falsehood,  if  I  can  pin  an  informer  to  one 
ring  of  perjury,  I  will  bait  him  on  it,  till  it  is  impossible  to  give  him 
credit.  Can  the  life  of  any  man  be  safe,  can  it  be  considered  of  any 
moment,  if  such  perjury  as  this  is  to  take  it  away  ?  What  argument 
can  be  found  to  support  his  testimony,  when  he  swears  he  has  perjured 
himself?  He  forgets  when  he  perjured  himself — what!  an  informer 
foi'get?  But,  in  spite  of  what  he  swears,  I  will  say  he  is  not  perjured, 
but  he  is  an  honest  man !  I  am  speaking  of  his  communications  with 
Lord  Portarlington  ;  I  am  not  confounding  his  testimony  with  the 
perjury  of  Clarke  ;  but  I  am  speaking  of  O'Brien,  and  comparing  his 
testimony  with  himself,  because  he  stated,  he  did  not  hear  anything 
of  the  funeral  or  of  attacking  the  stores  till  the  second  or  third  meet- 
ing, and  Lord  Portarlington  mentions  he  stated  it  upon  the  first.  If 
it  is  possible  that  any  man  can  come  into  a  court  of  justice  as  a  wit- 
ness to  perjure  himself,  if  such  man  did  come  in,  I  do  pray  God  to 
forgive  him  ;  and  I  do  beg  that  man's  pardon  for  what  I  have  said ; 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  589 

because  it  is  your  calm  and  cool  verdict  that  is  to  stamp  on  his  cha- 
racter that  degree  of  credit  which  he  deserves,  and  which  cannot  be 
inflicted  by  any  casual  strictures  of  mine. 

Gentlemen,  you  must  perceive  it  to  be  material  to  the  question,  how 
it  came  to  pass  that  O'Brien  should  be  able  tell  Lord  Portarlington, 
that  it  was  intended  to  make  an  attack  upon  the  ordnance,  unless  he 
started  at  the  beginning  with  a  design  of  being  an  informer,  and  with 
a  determination  of  swearing  against  some  person  or  other.  Whether 
he  saw  Hyland  or  Finney,  is  a  matter  extremely  questionable.  But 
this  is  not ;  that  he  laid  the  foundation  of  a  false  charge  ;  false — be- 
cause it  does  appear  that  he  stated  it  at  a  time  it  could  not  possibly 
exist.  And  here,  gentlemen,  you  see  the  cleverness  he  exerted  in 
imposing  on  the  honest,  unsuspecting  nature  of  those  who  were  to 
conduct  and  take  care  of  the  business  for  the  ci'own  ;  he  stated  as  a 
fact  what  existed  mei-ely  in  his  own  fancy  ;  he  did  state  that  to  Lord 
Portarlington,  which  could  not  have  happened  at  the  time  ;  and  with 
which,  by  his  own  evidence,  he  was  not  acquainted  till  after  his 
interview  with  that  lord. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  stated  a  little  of  the  evidence,  I  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  return  to  it  again  ;  but  before  I  do  so  give  me  leave  to  recall 
to  your  minds  that  statement  by  my  learned  friend  as  applied  to  the 
law  of  treason  in  this  case.  It  is  the  invulnerable  principle  of  the 
English  law,  that  two  witnesses  are  necessary  in  cases  of  treason ;  but 
though  the  law  is  not  the  same  in  both  countries,  yet  the  principle  of 
the  law  is,  and  is  engraven  upon  the  heart  of  every  honest  man  ;  for 
every  man  must  see  what  the  principle  of  that  is,  and  will  do  what 
St.  Paul  says — "  They  know  not  the  law  nor  the  prophets  ;  but  they 
do  the  things  that  are  written  in  their  hearts ;  their  consciences  also 
bearing  unto  them  testimony." 

I  own  it  is  with  a  warmth  of  heart  that  I  refute  a  calumny  of  en- 
deavouring to  separate  the  two  countries.  We  feel  the  value  of  the 
British  constitution,  and  under  the  sacred  shade  of  that  constitution  I 
do  now  place  my  client ;  and  I  do  call  upon  you  to  show  a  cordiality 
of  adherence  to  the  British  law,  not  by  a  sycophantic  display  of  idle 
words — not  by  saying  "  Lord  !  Lord  !  " — but  "  by  doing  the  will  of 
that  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  Show  your  concurrence  in  the 
principles  of  that  law — show  an  adherence  worthy  of  yourselves  by 
showing  an  adherence  to  a  communion  of  law  and  justice.  What  does 
that  law  say  ?  If  my  client  must  be  unfortunate,  it  is  for  being  an 
Irishman ;  for  having  been  tried  in  his  own  country.  Had  he  been 
tried  by  a  jury  of  Ludgate-hill  shopkeepers,  he  would  long  before  this 
time  have  been  in  his  lodging,  if  he  had  one  ;  and  the  court  (had  he 
been  tried  in  England)  would  have  said,  the  law  does  not  suffer  a  man 
to  be  butchered  by  one  witness — by  one  wretched  perjurer.  The 
court  and  jury,  and  those  who  pi'osecute  for  the  crown,  may  be 
imposed  upon,  where  a  wretch  thirsts  for  the  blood  of  his  fellow- 
creatures  ;  and,  if  such  may  happen  in  England,  why  should  an  Irish 
jury  he  incredulous  of  the  fact  ?  In  that  country,  St.  Paul's  is  not 
more  public  than  the  charge  made  against  the  poorest  creature  that 
crawls  upon  the  soil  of  England.  There  must  be  two  witnesses  to 
convict  the  prisoner  of  high  treason.  The  prisoner  must  have  a  copy 
of  the  jurors'  names,  by  whom  he  may  eventually  be  tried  ;  he  must 


590  TRIAL  OF 

have  a  list  of  the  witnesses  that  are  to  be  produced  against  him,  that 
they  may  not,  vampire-like,  come  crawling  out  of  the  grave  to  drink 
his  blood  ;  but  that,  by  having  a  list  of  their  names  and  places  of  abode, 
he  may  inquire  into  their  characters  and  modes  of  life,  that,  if  they 
are  infamous,  he  may  be  enabled  to  defend  himself  against  the  attacks 
of  their  perjmy,  and  their  subornation.  There  must,  I  say,  be  two 
witnesses,  that  the  juiy  may  be  satisfied,  if  they  believe  the  evidence, 
that  the  prisoner  is  guilty  ;  and  if  there  be  but  one  Avitness,  the  jury 
shall  not  be  troubled  with  the  idle  folly  of  listening  to  the  prisoner's 
defence.  There  can  be  but  little  probability  of  contradicting  one 
witness  ;  he  little  fears  the  detection  of  his  intended  murder,  and  his 
public  perjury.  It  is  diiScult  to  contradict  that  man,  who  has  only  a 
communication  between  himself  and  the  infernal  author  of  all  evil. 
It  is  only  when  the  promoter  of  his  infamy  calls  for  retribution,  in 
the  loss  of  his  victim,  that  the  wretched  perjurer  is  appalled.  I  do 
not  mean  to  apply  any  of  those  observations  where  man  is  equal  with 
man  ;  God  forbid !  I  trust  that  the  principle  of  the  English  law  will 
be  proved  by  you,  to  be  the  same  in  this  country,  that  I  am  yet  proud 
of.  God  forbid  !  we  should  not  feel  as  much,  and  have  hearts  beating 
as  high,  as  they  can  in  England.  I  care  not  that  my  client  knows 
nothing  of  you.  If  the  blood  of  a  man  in  this  countiy  is  not  considered 
equally  precious  as  in  another — yet,  if  I  know  the  feelings  of  the 
human  heart,  and  the  look  of  the  human  countenance,  he  has  no  reason 
to  regret  that  you  ai-e  not  an  English  jury ;  though  it  may  be  unfor- 
tunate for  him  that  he  is  an  Irishman.  Am  I  i-easoning  wildly  ? 
Why  was  it  made  the  law  in  England  that  two  witnesses  were 
necessary  on  a  trial  for  high  treason  ?  Because  the  law  did  take  it 
for  granted  that  no  one  witness  ought  to  take  away  the  life  of  a  pri- 
soner charged  with  such  a  crime  ;  and  if  that  was  the  reason  which 
induced  that  necessary  rule  of  law,  was  it  absurdly  stated  to  you  that 
it  was  founded  in  the  clear  and  obvious  principles  of  justice  ?  If  so, 
the  laws  of  eternal  justice  do  not  require  the  sanction  of  an  act  of 
parliament. 

Another  circumstance  has  occurred  to  me  of  particular  moment, 
and  that  is,  the  man  came  forward  to  take  his  trial  in  the  absence  of 
two  witnesses,  sworn  to  be  materially  necessary  for  his  defence.  He 
stands  at  the  bar  totally  divested  of  whatever  aid  they  could  have 
given  him  by  their  presence.  What  they  could  have  stated,  I  am  not 
at  liberty  to  mention  to  you ;  it  would  not  be  evidence.  That  they 
are  not  here  now,  is  not  imputable  to  any  neglect  of  my  client  to  pro- 
cure them.  I  have  only  to  say,  that  the  two  witnesses  might  have  been 
most  material  to  the  defence  of  the  prisoner ;  but  so  little  do  I  now 
think  he  stands  in  need  of  their  support  that  I  should  not  have  men- 
tioned them  if  they  had  not  been  so  oftened  named.  Gentlemen,  do 
you  remember  the  testimony  admitted  by  O'Brien,  that  "  if  Roberts 
said  anything  against  him  he  would  settle  him  ?  "  The  very  informer 
coming  here  to  plunge  a  dagger  into  the  heart  of  the  prisoner,  thus 
plunges  a  dagger  into  the  heart  of  the  intended  witness.  Why  was 
it  he  threw  his  abominable  threat  against  the  life  of  Mr.  Roberts  ?  It 
was  to  deter  him  from  giving  evidence  of  the  baseness  and  infamy  of 
his  abominable  life,  I  said  Mr.  Roberts  was  not  here  ;  now  I  say  he 
is  here — I  appeal  to  the  evidence  of  O'Brien — I  appeal  to  the  heart 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  591 

of  that  man  who  vowed  vengeance  against  him  if  he  appeared  on  the 
table.  I  appeal  to  the  obdurate  heart  of  that  wretched  and  abandoned 
man.  What  was  the  evidence  he  knew  Mr.  Roberts  would  have  given 
if  he  had  dared  to  appear  on  the  table,  and  in  a  court  of  justice  ?  And 
that  he  would  make  it  at  the  risk  of  his  life,  from  the  attack  of  the 
perjured  informer,  if  he  came  into  a  court  of  justice  to  give  evidence. 
Good  God  !  is  a  transaction  of  this  kind  to  be  borne  ?  Where  do  the 
laws  exist  ?  Shall  the  horrors  which  surround  the  informer,  the 
ferocity  of  his  countenance  and  the  terrors  of  his  voice,  cast  such  a 
wide  and  appalling  influence  that  none  dare  approach  and  save  the 
victim  whom  he  has  marked  out  for  ignominy  and  death  ? 

He  has  told  you  there  are  no  less  than  1 11, 000  men  in  one  province, 
and  10,000  in  the  city  of  Dublin,  ready  to  assist  an  invasion !     Gen- 
tlemen, are  you  prepared  to  say  that  the  kingdom  of  Ireland  has  been 
so  forsaken  by  all  principles  of  humanity  and  of  loyalty,  that  there 
are  now  no  less  than  111,000  men  sworn  by  the  most  solemn  of  all 
engagements,  and  connected  in  a  deadly  combination  to  destroy  the 
constitution  of  the  country,  and  to  invite  the  common  enemy,  the 
French,  to  invade  it — are  you  prepared  to  say  this  by  your  verdict  ? 
When  you  know  not  the  intentions  or  the  means  of  that  watchful  and 
insatiable  enemy,  do  you  think  it  would  be  wise  by  your  verdict  of 
guilty,  to  say,  on  the  single  testimony  of  a  common  infoi'mer,  that  you 
do  believe  upon  your  oatlis  that  there  is  a  body  consisting  of  no  less 
a  number  than  1 1 1,000  men  ready  to  assist  the  French,  if  they  should 
make  an  attempt  upon  this  country,  and  ready  to  fly  to  their  standard 
whenever  they  think  proper  to  invade  it  ?     This  is  another  point  of 
view  in  which  to  examine  this  case.     You  know  the  distress  and  con- 
vulsion of  the  public  mind  for  a  considerable  length  of  time ;  cau- 
tiously will  I  abstain  from  making  observations  that  could  refresh  the 
public  memory,  situated  as  I  am  in  a  court  of  justice.     But,  gentle- 
men, this  is  the  first,   the   only  trial  for  high  treason,  in  which  an 
informer  gives  his  notions  of  the  propriety  or  impropi'iety  of  public 
measures ;  I  remember  none — except  the  trial  of  that  unfortunate 
wanderer,   that  unhappy  fugitive,  for  so  I  may  call  hun,  Jackson,  a 
native  of  this  country — guilty  he  was,  but  neither  his  guilt  nor  inno- 
cence had  any  affinity  with   any  other  system.     But  this  is  the  first 
trial  that  has  been  brought  forward  for  high  treason,  except  that, 
where   such  mattei's   have  been   disclosed ;  and,  gentlemen,  are  you 
prepared  to  think  well  of  the  burden  of  embarking  your  character, 
high  and  respectable,  on  the  evidence  of  an  abandoned  and,  I  will 
show  you,   a  peijured  and  common  informer,   in   declaring  you  are 
ready  to  offer  up  to  death  111,000  men,  one  by  one,  by  the  sentence 
of  a  court  of  justice  ?     Are  you  ready  to  meet  it  ?     Do  not  suppose  I 
am  base  or  mean   enough  to   say  anything  to  intimidate  you,  when  I 
talk  to  you  of  such  an  event ;  but  if  you  were  prepared  for  such  a 
scene,  what  would  be  your  private  reflections  were  you  to  do  any  such 
thing  ?     Tlierefore  I  put  the  question  fairly  to  you — have  you  made 
up  your  minds  to  tell  the  public,  that  as  soon  as  James  O'Brien  shall 
choose  to  come  forward  again,  to  make  the  same   charge  against 
111,000  other  men,  you  are  ready  to  see  so  many  men,  so   many 
of  your  fellow-subjects  and  fellow-citizens,  drop  one  by  one  into  the 
grave,  dug  for  them  by  his  testimony  ? 


592  TRIAL   OF 

Gentlemen,  I  do  not  think  I  am  speaking  disrespectfully  to  you 
when  I  say,  that  when  such  a  character  as  Mr.  O'Brien  can  be  found, 
it  may  be  the  lot  of  the  proudest  among  you  to  have  a  visitation  from 
him,  and  instead  of  sitting  in  the  jury-box,  you  might  be  at  the  bar 
where  my  client  now  stands.  If  you  were  standing  there,  how  would 
you  feel  if  you  found  that  the  evidence  of  such  a  wretch  would  be  ad- 
mitted as  sufficient  to  attaint  your  life,  and  send  you  to  an  ignominious 
death  ?  Remember,  I  do  beseech  you,  that  great  mandate  of  your 
religion — "  Do  thou  unto  all  men  as  you  would  they  should  unto  you." 

Give  me  leave  to  put  another  point  to  you — what  is  the  reason  that 
you  deliberate,  that  you  condescend  to  listen  to  me,  and  try  if  from 
me  anything  can  come  to  illuminate  the  subject  before  you  ?  It  is 
because  you  are  bound  by  the  sacred  obligation  of  an  oath.  It  is  be- 
cause you  feel  that  that  sacred  obligation  is  a  thing  which  you  dare 
not  forfeit.  Have  you  any  doubt  that  it  is  the  object  of  O'Brien  to 
take  down  the  prisoner  for  the  reward  that  follows  ?  Have  you  not 
seen  with  what  more  than  instinctive  keenness  this  bloodhound  has 
pursued  his  victim  ?  How  he  has  kept  him  in  view  from  place  to 
place  until  he  hunts  him  through  the  avenues  of  the  court  to  where 
the  unhappy  man  stands  now,  hopeless  of  all  succour  but  that  which 
your  verdict  shall  afford.  I  have  heard  of  assassination  by  sword, 
by  pistol,  and  by  dagger ;  but  here  is  a  wretch  who  would  dip  the 
evangelists  in  blood :  if  he  thinks  he  has  not  sworn  his  victim  to 
death,  he  is  ready  to  swear  without  mercy  and  without  end.  But 
oh  !  do  not,  I  assure  you,  suffer  him  to  take  an  oath — the  hand  of  the 
murderer  should  not  pollute  the  purity  of  the  Gospel :  if  he  will  swear, 
let  it  be  on  the  knife,  the  proper  symbol  of  his  profession. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  again  reminded  of  that  tissue  of  abominable 
slander  and  calumny  with  which  O'Brien  has  endeavoured  to  load  so 
great  a  portion  of  the  adult  part  of  your  country.  Is  it  possible  you 
can  believe  the  report  of  that  wretch,  that  no  less  than  111,000  men 
are  ready  to  destroy  and  overturn  the  government  ?  I  do  not  believe 
the  abominable  slander.  I  may  have  been  too  quick  in  condemning 
this  man  ;  and  I  know  the  argument  which  will  be  used,  and,  to  a 
certain  degree,  it  is  not  without  sense — that  you  cannot  always  expect 
witnesses  of  the  most  unblemished  character,  and  such  things  would 
never  be  brought  to  light  if  witnesses  like  O'Brien  were  rejected 
altogether.  The  argument  is  of  some  force ;  but  does  it  hold  here  ? 
or  are  you  to  believe  it  as  a  truth,  because  the  fact  is  sworn  to  by 
an  abominable  and  perjured  witness  ?  No  ;  the  law  of  England,  the 
so-often-mentioned  principle  upon  which  that  important  statute  is 
framed,  denies  the  admission.  An  English  judge  would  be  bound  to 
tell  you,  and  the  learned  judges  present  will  tell  you,  that  a  single 
accomplice  is  not  to  be  believed  without  strong  corroborative  con- 
firmations— I  do  not  know  where  a  contrary  principle  was  entertained  ; 
if  such  has  been  the  case,  I  never  heard  of  it.  O'Brien  stated  himself 
to  have  been  involved  in  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner,  in  taking  the  obli- 
gation which  was  forced  on  him,  and  which  he  was  afterwards  obliged 
to  wash  down ;  but  may  not  the  whole  description  given  by  him  be 
false  ?  May  he  not  have  fabricated  that  story,  and  come  forward  as 
an  informer  in  a  transaction  that  never  happened,  from  the  expectation 
of  pay  and  profit  ?     How  does  he  stand  ?     He  stands  divested  of  a 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  593 

Single  witness  to  support  his  character  or  the  trutli  of  his  assertions, 
when  numbers  were  necessary  for  each.  You  would  be  most  helpless 
and  unfortunate  men,  if  everything  said  by  the  witness  laid  you  under 
a  necessity  of  believing  it.  Therefore  he  must  be  supported  either  by 
collateral  or  coniirmatory  evidence.  Has  he  been  supported  by  any 
collateral  evidence,  confirming  what  was  sworn  this  day  ?  No.  Two 
witnesses  have  been  examined,  they  are  not  additional  witnesses  to 
the  overt  acts  ;  but  if  either  of  them  should  carry  any  conviction  to 
your  minds,  you  must  be  satisfied  that  the  evidence  given  by  O'Brien 
is  false.  I  will  not  pollute  the  respectable  and  honourable  character 
of  Lord  Portarlington,  by  mentioning  it  with  the  false  and  perjured 
O'Brien.  Does  his  lordship  tell  you  a  single  word  but  what  O'Brien 
said  to  him  ?  Because,  if  his  lordship  told  all  here  that  O'Brien  told 
to  him,  O'Brien  has  done  the  same  too ;  and  though  he  has  told  Lord 
Portarlington  every  word  which  he  has  sworn  on  the  table,  yet  still  the 
evidence  given  by  his  lordship  cannot  be  corroborative ;  because  the 
probability  is  that  he  told  a  falsehood ;  you  must  take  that  evidence 
by  comparison.  And  what  did  he  tell  Lord  Portarlington  ?  or,  rather, 
what  has  Lord  Poi'tarlington  told  you  ? — That  O'Brien  did  state  to  him 
the  project  of  I'obbing  the  ordnance  some  time  before  he  could  possibly 
have  known  it  himself.  And  it  is  material  that  he  swore  on  the  table 
thathe  did  not  know  of  the  plot  till  his  third  meeting  with  the  socie- 
ties ;  and  Lord  Portaidington  swears  that  he  told  it  to  him  on  the  first 
interview  with  him :  tliex'e  the  contradiction  of  O'Brien  by  Lord 
Portarlington  is  material ;  and  the  testimony  of  Lord  Portarlington  may 
be  put  out  of  the  case,  except  so  far  as  it  contradicts  that  of  O'Brien. 

Mr.  Justice  Chamberlain. — It  is  material,  Mr.  Curran,  that  Lord 
Portarlington  did  not  swear  positively  it  was  at  the  fii'St  interview, 
but  that  he  was  inclined  to  believe  it  was  so. 

Mr.  Curran Your  lordship  will  recollect  that  he  said  O'Brien 

did  not  say  anything  of  consequence  at  any  of  the  other  interviews  ; 
but  I  put  his  lordship  out  of  the  question,  so  far  as  he  does  not  con- 
tradict O'Brien,  and  he  does  so.  If  I  am  stating  anything  through 
mistake,  I  would  wish  to  be  set  right ;  but  Lord  Portarlington  said 
he  did  not  recollect  anything  of  importance  at  any  subsequent  meeting ; 
and  as  far  as  he  goes,  he  does  beyond  contradiction  establish  the  false 
swearing  of  O'Brien.  I  am  strictly  right  in  stating  the  contradiction  ; 
so  far  as  it  can  be  compared  with  the  testimony  of  O'Brien,  it  does 
weaken  it ;  and,  therefore,  I  will  leave  it  there,  and  put  Lord  Portar- 
lington out  of  the  question — that  is,  as  if  he  had  not  been  examined 
at  all,  but  where  he  differs  from  the  evidence  given  by  O'Brien. 

As  to  the  witness  Clarke,  after  all  he  has  sworn,  you  cannot  but  be 
satisfied  he  has  not  said  a  single  word  materially  against  the  prisoner  ; 
he  has  not  given  any  confirmatory  evidence  in  support  of  any  one 
overt  act  laid  in  the  indictment.  You  have  them  upon  your  minds 
— he  has  not  said  one  word  as  to  the  various  meetings — levying 
money,  or  sending  persons  to  France ;  and,  therefore,  I  do  warn  you 
against  giving  it  that  attention  for  which  it  has  beon  introduced.  He 
does  not  make  a  second  witness.  Gentlemen,  in  alluding  to  the 
evidence  of  Lord  Portarlington,  which  I  have  ali-eady  mentioned,  I 
was  bound  to  make  some  observations.  On  the  evidence  of  Clarke  I 
am  also  obliged  to  do  the  same,  because  he  has  endeavoured  to  pre- 

2   Q 


594  TRIAL    OF 

judice  your  minds  by  an  endeavour  to  give  a  sliding  evidence  of  what 
does  not  by  any  means  come  within  this  case  ;  that  is,  a  malignant 
endeavour  to  impute  an  horrid  transaction — the  murder  of  a  man  of 
the  name  of  Thompson — to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ;  but  I  do  conjure 
you  to  consider  what  motives  there  can  be  for  insinuations  of  this 
sort,  and  why  such  a  transaction,  so  remote  from  the  case  before  you, 
should  be  endeavoured  to  be  impressed  on  your  minds.  Gentlemen, 
I  am  not  blinking  the  question,  I  come  boldly  up  to  it ;  and  I  ask 
you,  in  the  presence  of  the  court  and  of  your  God,  is  there  one 
word  of  evidence  that  bears  the  shadow  of  such  a  charge,  as  the 
murder  of  that  unfortunate  man,  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ?  Is  there 
one  word  to  show  how  he  died — whether  by  force,  or  by  any  other 
means  ?  Is  there  a  word  how  he  came  to  his  end  ?  Is  there  a  word 
to  bi*ing  a  shadow  of  suspicion  that  can  be  attached  to  the  prisoner  ? 
Gentlemen,  my  client  has  been  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  a  witness, 
May,  (you  have  heard  of  it,)  who,  had  the  trial  been  postponed, 
might  have  been  able  to  attend ;  we  have  not  been  able  to  examine 
him  ;  but  you  may  guess  what  he  would  have  said — he  would  have  dis- 
credited the  informer  O'Brien.  The  evidence  of  O'Brien  ought  to  be 
supported  by  collateral  circvimstances.  It  is  not ;  and  though  Roberts 
is  not  here,  yet  you  may  conjecture  what  he  would  have  said.  But, 
gentlemen,  I  have  examined  five  witnesses,  and  it  does  seem  as  if 
there  had  been  some  providential  interference  carried  on  in  bringing 
five  witnesses  to  contradict  O'Brien  in  his  testimony,  as  to  direct 
matters  of  fact,  if  his  testimony  could  be  put  in  competition  with 
direct  positive  evidence.  O'Brien  said,  he  knew  nothing  of  ordering 
back  any  money  to  Margaret  Moore  ;  he  denied  that  fact.  The 
woman  was  examined — what  did  she  say  on  the  table  in  the  presence 
of  O'Brien  ?  That  "  an  order  was  made,  and  the  money  refunded, 
after  the  magistrate  had  abused  him  for  his  conduct."  What  would 
you  think  of  your  servant,  if  you  found  him  committing  such 
perjury — would  you  believe  him?  What  do  you  think  of  this  fact? 
O'Brien  denies  he  knew  anything  of  the  money  being  refunded ! 
What  does  Mrs.  Moore  say  ?  That  after  the  magistrate  had 
abused  him  for  his  conduct  the  money  was  refunded,  and  that  "  she 
and  O'Brien  walked  down  stairs  together!"  Is  this  an  accidental 
trip,  a  little  stumble  of  conscience,  or,  is  it  not  downright,  wilful 
perjury?  What  said  Mr.  Clarke?  I  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
evidence  by  asking  O'Brien,  did  you  ever  pass  for  a  revenue  ofiicer  ? 
I  call,  gentlemen,  on  your  knowledge  of  the  human  character,  and 
of  human  life,  what  was  the  conduct  of  the  man  ?  Was  it  what  you 
would  have  acted,  if  you  had  been  called  on  in  a  court  of  justice? 
Did  he  answer  me  candidly  ?  Do  you  remember  his  manner  ?  "  Not, 
sir,  that  I  remember  ;  it  could  not  be  when  I  was  sober."  Did  you 
do  it  at  all  ?  What  was  the  answer — "  I  might,  sii",  have  done  it ; 
but  I  must  have  been  drunk.  I  never  did  anything  dishonest."  Why 
did  he  answer  thus  ?  Because  he  did  imagine  he  would  have  been 
opposed  in  his  testimony,  he  not  only  added  perjury  to  his  prevari- 
cation, but  he  added  robbery  to  both.  There  are  thousands  of  your 
fellow-subjects  waiting  to  know,  if  the  fact  charged  upon  the  nation 
of  111,000  men  ready  to  assist  the  common  enemy  be  true  ;  if  upon 
the  evidence  of  an  abandoned  wretch,  a  common  cheat,  a  robber. 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  595 

and  a  perjurer,  you  will  convict  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  As  to  his 
being  a  coiner,  I  will  not  pass  that  felony  in  payment  among  his  other 
crimes,  but  I  will  offer  it  by  itself;  I  will  ofter  it  as  an  emblem  of  his 
conscience,  copper  washed — I  will  offer  it  by  itself. 

What  has  O'Brien  said  ?  "  I  never  remember  that  I  did  pretend  to 
be  a  revenue  officer  ;  but  I  remember  there  was  a  man  said  something 
about  whiskey  ;  and  I  remember,  I  threatened  to  complain,  and  he 
was  a  little  frightened — and  he  gave  me  three  and  three  pence !" — 
I  asked  him,  "  Did  his  wife  give  you  anything  ?" — "  There  was  three 
and  three  pence  between  them." — "  Who  gave  you  the  money  ?"  "  It 
was  all  I  got  from  both  of  them  !" — Gentlemen,  would  you  let  him 
into  your  house  as  a  servant  ?  Suppose  one  of  you  wanted  a  servant, 
and  went  to  the  other  to  get  one ;  and  suppose  you  heai'd  that  he 
personated  a  revenue  officer ;  that  he  had  threatened  to  become  an 
informer  against  persons  not  having  licences,  in  order  to  extort 
money  to  compromise  the  actions,  Avould  you  take  him  as  a  ser- 
vant? If  you  would  not  take  him  as  a  servant  in  exchange 
for  his  wages,  would  you  take  his  perjuries  in  exchange  for  the 
life  of  a  fellow-subject  ?  Let  me  ask  you,  how  would  you  show  your 
faces  to  the  public,  and  justify  a  barter  of  that  kind,  if  you  were  to 
establish  and  send  abroad  his  assignats  of  perjury  to  pass  current  as 
the  price  of  human  blood  ?  How  could  you  bear  the  tyranny  your 
consciences  would  exercise  over  you  ;  the  dagger  that  would  turn 
upon  your  heart's  blood,  if  in  the  moment  of  madness  you  could  suffer 
by  your  verdict  the  sword  of  justice  to  fall  on  the  head  of  a  victim 
committed  to  your  sworn  humanity,  to  be  massacred  in  your  presence 
by  the  perjured  and  abominable  evidence  that  has  been  offered  !  But 
does  it  stop  there  ? — Has  perjury  rested  there  ? — No.  What  said  the 
honest-looking,  unlettered  mind  of  the  poor  farmer? — What  said 
Cavanagh  ? — "  I  keep  a  public-house, — O'Brien  came  to  me,  and  pre- 
tended he  was  a  revenue  officer ; — I  knew  not  but  it  might  be  so  ; — 
he  told  me  he  was  so — he  examined  my  little  beer  I  had,  and  my  cask 
of  porter."  And,  gentlemen,  what  did  the  villain  do  ?  While  he 
was  dipping  his  abandoned  tongue  in  perjury  and  in  blood,  he  robbed 
the  wretched  man  of  two  guineas.  Where  is  he  now  ?  Do  you 
wonder  he  is  afraid  of  my  eye  ?  that  he  has  buried  himself  in  the 
crowd  ?  that  he  has  shrunk  into  the  whole  of  the  multitude,  when 
the  witness  endeavoured  to  disentangle  him  and  his  evidence  ?  Do 
you  not  feel  that  he  was  appalled  with  horror  by  that  more  piercing 
and  penetrating  eye  that  looks  upon  him,  and  upon  me,  and  upon  us 
all  ? — The  chords  of  his  heart  bore  testimony  by  its  flight,  and  proved 
that  he  fled  for  the  same.  But  does  it  rest  there  ?  No.  Witness 
upon  witness  appeared  for  the  prisoner,  to  whom,  I  dare  say,  you  will 
give  that  credit  you  must  deny  to  O'Brien.  In  the  presence  of  God 
they  swore,  "  that  they  would  not  believe  him  upon  his  oath  in  the 
smallest  matter."  Do  you  know  him,  gentlemen  of  the  jury  ? — Are 
you  acquainted  with  James  O'Brien  ? — If  you  do,  let  him  come  for- 
ward from  that  crowd  where  he  has  hid  himself,  and  claim  you  by  a 
look.  Have  you  been  fellow-companions  ? — If  you  have  I  dare  say 
you  will  recognise  him.  Have  I  done  with  him  yet  ?— No  ;  while 
there  is  a  thread  of  his  villainy  together,  I  will  tatter  it,  lest  you 
should  be  caught  with  it.     Did  he  dare  to  say  to  the  solicitor  for  the 


596  TRIAL  OF 

crown,  to  tlie  counsel  that  are  persecuting  the  prisoner,  that  "  there 
is  some  one  witness  on  the  surface  of  the  globe  that  will  saj,  he 
believes  I  am  not  a  villain  ;  but  I  am  a  man  that  deserves  some  credit 
on  my  oath  in  a  court  of  justice  ?"  Did  he  venture  to  call  one  human 
being  to  that  fact  ?  But  why  did  they  not  venture  to  examine  the 
prisoner's  witnesses,  as  to  the  reasons  of  their  disbelief?  AVhat,  if 
I  was  bold  enough  to  say  of  any  of  you,  gentlemen,  that  I  did  not 
think  you  deserved  credit  on  your  oath,  would  not  the  first  question 
you  would  ask  be  the  reason  for  that  opinion  ?  Did  he  ventui'e  to 
ask  that  question  ?  No.  I  think  the  trial  has  been  fairly  and 
humanely  carried  on.  Mrs.  JNIoore  was  examined  ;  she  underwent  a 
cross-examination — the  object  was  to  impeach  her  credit.  I  oiFered 
to  examine  to  her  character ;  no — I  would  not  be  suffered  to  do  it ; — 
they  were  right  in  the  point  of  law.  Gentlemen,  let  me  ask  you 
another  question  : — Is  the  character  of  O'Brien  such,  that  you  think 
he  did  not  know  that  any  human  creature  was  to  attack  it  ?  Did  you 
not  see  him  coiling  himself  in  the  scaly  circles  of  his  perjury,  making 
anticipated  battle  against  the  attack,  that  he  knew  would  be  made, 
and  spitting  his  venom  against  the  man  that  might  have  given  such 
evidence  of  his  infamous  character,  if  he  had  dared  to  appear. 

Gentlemen,  do  you  feel  now  that  I  was  maliciously  aspersing  the 
character  of  O'Brien  ?  What  language  is  strong  enough  to  describe 
the  mixture  of  swindling  and  imposition  which,  in  the  face  of  justice, 
this  wretch  has  been  guilty  of?  Taking  on  himself  the  situation  of 
one  of  the  King's  officers,  to  rob  the  King's  subjects  of  the  King's 
money  ;  but  tliat  is  not  enough  for  him — in  the  vileness  and  turpitude 
of  his  cliaraeter  he  afterwards  wants  to  rob  them  of  their  lives  by 
perjury.  Do  I  speak  truly  to  you,  gentlemen,  when  I  have  shown 
you  the  witness  in  his  real  colours — when  I  have  shown  you  his 
habitual  fellowship  with  baseness  and  fraud  ?  He  gave  a  recipe  for 
forging  money.  "  Why  did  you  give  it  to  him  ?"  "  He  was  an 
inquisitive  man,  and  I  gave  it  as  a  matter  of  course."  "  But  why  did 
you  do  it  ?"  "  It  was  a  light,  easy  way  of  getting  money — I  gave  it 
as  a  humbug."  He  gave  a  recipe  for  forging  the  coin  of  the  country, 
because  it  was  a  light,  easy  way  of  getting  money  !  Has  it,  gentle- 
men, ever  happened  to  you  in  the  ordinary  passages  of  life,  to  have 
met  with  such  a  constellation  of  atrocities  and  horrors,  and  that  in  a 
single  man  ?  AYliat  do  you  say  to  Clarke  ?  Except  his  perjury,  he 
has  scarcely  ground  to  turn  on.  What  was  his  cross-examination  ? 
"  Pray,  sir,  were  you  in  court  yesterday  ?"  "  No,  sir ;  I  was  not." 
"  Why  ?"  "  Mr.  Kemmis  sent  me  word  not  to  come."  There  happened 
to  be  several  persons  who  saw  him  in  court :  one  of  them  swoi'c  it — 
the  rest  were  i-eady.  Call  up  little  Skirmisli  again.*  "Pray,  Skirmish, 
why  did  you  say  you  were  not  in  court  yesterday,  Avhen  you  were  ?" 
"  Why,  it  was  a  little  bit  of  a  mistake,  not  being  a  lawyer.  It  being 
a  matter  of  law,  I  was  mistaken."  "  How  did  it  happen  you  were  mis- 
taken ?"  "  I  was  puzzled  by  the  hard  questions  that  Mr.  M'Nally  asked 
Jne."  AVhat  was  the  hard  question  he  was  asked  ?  "  AYere  you  in 
court  yestesday  ?"  "  No ;  Mr.  Kemmis  sent  me  word  I  need  not 
come !"     Can  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  suppose  that  any  simple 

Little  Skirmish,  a  character  in  The  Deserter. 


PATRICK  FINNEY.  597 

well-meaning  man  would  commit  such  a  gross  and  abominable  perjury? 
I  do  think  he  is  a  credible  man  ;  that  is,  that  he  swore  truer  than  Lord 
Portarlington  did,  because  it  stands  on  a  single  testimony ;  he  may  be 
true,  because  he  has  sworn  on  both  sides  :  he  has  sworn  positively  that 
he  was  not  in  the  court  yesterday ;  and  he  has  sworn  positively  he 
was !  so  that,  wherever  the  truth  is,  he  is  found  in  it ;  let  the  ground 
be  clean  or  dirty,  he  is  in  the  midst  of  it.  There  is  no  person  but 
deserves  some  little  degree  of  credit ;  if  the  soul  was  as  black  as  night, 
it  would  burn  to  something  in  hell.  But  let  me  not  appear  to  avoid 
the  question  by  any  seeming  levity  upon  it.  O'Brien  stands  blackened 
by  the  unimpeached  proofs  of  five  positive  perjuries.  If  he  was 
indicted  on  any  of  them,  he  could  not  appear  to  give  evidence  in  a 
court  of  justice;  and  I  do  call  upon  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to 
refuse  him  on  his  oath  that  credit  which  never  ought  to  be  squandered 
on  the  evidence  of  an  abandoned  and  self-convicted  perjurer. 

The  charge  is  not  merely  against  the  prisoner  at  the  bar ;  it  takes 
in  the  entire  character  of  your  country.  It  is  the  first  question  of 
the  kind  for  ages  brought  forward  in  this  nation  to  public  view,  after 
an  expectation  of  years.  It  is  the  great  experiment  of  the  informers 
of  Ireland,  to  see  with  what  success  they  may  make  this  traffic  of  human 
blood.  Fifteen  men  now  in  gaol,  depending  on  the  fate  of  the  unfor- 
tunate prisoner,  and  on  the  same  blasted  and  perjured  evidence  of 
O'Brien.  I  have  stated  at  large  the  case,  and  the  situation  of  my 
client  ;  I  make  no  apology  for  wasting  your  time  ;  I  regret  I  have 
not  been  more  able  to  do  my  duty  ;  it  would  insult  you  if  I  were  to 
express  any  such  feeling  to  you.  I  have  only  to  aplogize  to  my  client 
for  delaying  his  acquittal.  I  have  blackened  the  character  of  O'Brien 
in  every  point  of  view ;  and,  though  he  anticipated  that  attack  that 
would  be  made  on  it,  yet  he  could  not  pi'ocure  one  human  being  even 
base  enough  to  depose,  that  he  was  to  be  believed  on  his  oath. 

The  character  of  the  prisoner  has  been  given.  Am  I  warranted  in 
saying,  that  I  am  now  defending  an  innocent  and  unfortunate  fellow- 
subject,  on  the  grounds  of  eternal  justice  and  immutable  law ;  and 
on  that  eternal  law  I  do  call  upon  you  to  acquit  my  client.  I  call 
upon  you  for  your  justice  !  Great  is  the  reward,  and  sweet  the  recol- 
lection in  the  hour  of  trial,  and  in  the  day  of  dissolution  ;  when  the 
casualties  of  life  are  pressing  close  upon  your  heart,  and  when,  in  the 
agonies  of  death,  you  look  back  to  the  justifiable  and  honourable 
transactions  of  your  life.  At  the  awful  foot  of  eternal  justice  I  do, 
therefore,  invite  you  to  acquit  my  client ;  and  may  God  of  his  infinite 
mercy  !  grant  you  that  great  compensation  which  is  a  reward  more 
lasting  than  that  perishable  crown  we  read  of,  which  the  ancients 
gave  to  him  who  saved  the  life  of  a  fellow-citizen  in  battle.  In  the 
name  of  public  justice !  I  do  implore  you  to  interpose  between  the 
perjurer  and  his  intended  victim;  and,  if  ever  you  are  assailed  by  the 
villainy  of  an  informer,  may  you  find  refuge  in  the  recollection  of 
that  example  which,  when  jurors,  you  set  to  those  that  might  be  called 
to  pass  upon  your  lives  ;  to  repel  at  the  human  tribunal  the  intended 
effects  of  hireling  perjury,  and  premeditated  murder  ;  and,  if  it  should 
be  the  fate  of  any  of  you  to  count  the  tedious  moments  of  captivity, 
in  sorrow  and  in  pain,  pining  in  the  damps  and  gloom  of  a  dungeon, 
recollect  there  is  another  more   awful  tribunal  than  any  on  earth, 


598  TBIAL    OF 

which  we  must  all  approach,  and  before  which  the  best  of  us  will  have 
occasion  to  look  back  to  what  little  good  we  may  have  done  on  this 
side  the  grave  ;  I  do  pray,  that  Eternal  Justice  may  record  the 
deed  you  have  done,  and  give  to  you  the  full  benefit  of  your  claims 
to  an  eternal  reward,  a  requital  in  mercy  upon  your  souls. 

The  SoiiiciTOR-GENERAi,  replied,  after  which  the  jury  was  ad- 
dressed by  Judge  Chamberlain  and  Baron  Smith.  The  jury  I'etired 
for  a  about  a  quarter  of  an  hour  and  then  came  into  their  box  with 
a  verdict  of  not  guiety. 

On  Thursday,  the  1 9th,  several  other  persons,  accused  by  the  same 
witness,  were  brought  up;  and,  having  joined  in  their  challenges,  were 
committed  to  the  jury  together,  and  no  witness  being  produced,  they 
were  of  course  acquitted  ;  and,  after  having  taken  the  oath  of  allegi- 
ance and  having  entered  into  recognizances  for  their  good  behaviour, 
were  discharged. 


END    OF    FINNEY  S    Tl.IAL. 


Dublin  :  Pubdok,  Printer,  22,  Bachelor's  Walk. 


• 

Date  Due 

i 

1 

^u« 

%  k7t^ 

,   —  ;■          ■'      ■ 

1 

' 

1 

^ 

BOSTON  COLLtf.'t 


mmmv  Q^  338827  4 


//^c  A/^  v/k 


Boston  College  Library 

Chestnut  Hill  67,  Mass. 

Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  unless  a 
shorter  period  is  specified. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  inquire  at 
the  circulation  desk  for  assistance.